White House aides recall in new book Bidens fury over border: You could hear the president cursing  The Hill
See original here:
President Biden’s Struggle to Manage the Migrant Crisis is Expected to Stretch into … – Latest Tweet by – LatestLY
Rishi handed new deadline to fix migrant crisis as Tory MPs pile pressure on PM to act now – Express
Rishi handed new deadline to fix migrant crisis as Tory MPs pile pressure on PM to act now  Express
Read more from the original source:
Rishi handed new deadline to fix migrant crisis as Tory MPs pile pressure on PM to act now - Express
Webb Image Release- Webb Space Telescope GSFC/NASA
This image is dominated by NGC 7469, a luminous, face-on spiral galaxy approximately 90 000 light-years in diameter that lies roughly 220 million light-years from Earth in the constellation Pegasus. Its companion galaxy IC 5283 is partly visible in the lower left portion of this image. More
This spiral galaxy has recently been studied as part of the Great Observatories All-sky LIRGs Survey (GOALS) Early Release Science program with the NASA/ESA/CSA James Webb Space Telescope, which aims to study the physics of star formation, black hole growth, and feedback in four nearby, merging luminous infrared galaxies. Other galaxies studied as part of the survey include previous ESA/Webb Pictures of the Month II ZW 096 and IC 1623.
NGC 7469 is home to an active galactic nucleus (AGN), which is an extremely bright central region that is dominated by the light emitted by dust and gas as it falls into the galaxys central black hole. This galaxy provides astronomers with the unique opportunity to study the relationship between AGNs and starburst activity because this particular object hosts an AGN that is surrounded by a starburst ring at a distance of a mere 1500 light-years. While NGC 7469 is one of the best studied AGNs in the sky, the compact nature of this system and the presence of a great deal of dust have made it difficult for scientists to achieve both the resolution and sensitivity needed to study this relationship in the infrared. Now, with Webb, astronomers can explore the galaxys starburst ring, the central AGN, and the gas and dust in between.
Less | Read the Full Story | Image In Depth
IMAGE DETAILS -
Credits: ESA/Webb, NASA & CSA, L. Armus, A. S. Evans
Image Only
More:
What Is the James Webb Space Telescope? – NASA
An animation illustrating what the James Webb Space Telescope Looks like. Credit: NASAs Goddard Space Flight Center (modified)
The James Webb Space Telescope is the largest, most powerful space telescope ever built. It will allow scientists to look at what our universe was like about 200 million years after the Big Bang. The telescope will be able to capture images of some of the first galaxies ever formed. It will also be able to observe objects in our solar system from Mars outward, look inside dust clouds to see where new stars and planets are forming and examine the atmospheres of planets orbiting other stars.
Here are some fun facts about the James Webb Space Telescope:
The Webb telescope is as tall as a 3-story building and as long as a tennis court! It is so big that it has to fold origami-style to fit inside the rocket to launch. The telescope will unfold, sunshield first, once in space.
The James Webb Space Telescope is about the same size as a tennis court and about as tall as a 3-story building! Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
Infrared cameras can see through dust and smoke. Credit: NASA/IPAC/Pasadena Fire Dept.
The James Webb Space Telescope sees the universe in light that is invisible to human eyes. This light is called infrared radiation, and we can feel it as heat. Firefighters use infrared cameras to see and rescue people through the smoke in a fire. The James Webb Space Telescope will use its infrared cameras to see through dust in our universe. Stars and planets form inside those dust clouds, so peeking inside could lead to exciting new discoveries! It will also be able to see objects (like the first galaxies) that are so far away that the expansion of the universe has made their light shift from visible to infrared!
This animation shows how the sunshield will unfold when the Webb telescope reaches its home in orbit. Credit: NASA
The Webb telescopes cameras are sensitive to heat from the Sun. Just like you might wear a hat or a visor to block the Sun from your eyes, Webb has a sunshield to protect its instruments and mirrors. The telescopes sunshield is about the size of a tennis court. The temperature difference between the sun-facing and shaded sides of the telescope is more than 600 degrees Fahrenheit!
Engineers inspecting the Webb telescopes mirrors at NASAs Goddard Space Flight Center. Credit: NASA/Chris Gunn
Space telescopes see by using mirrors to collect and focus light from distant stars. (Check out our telescopes page to learn more about how space telescopes work.) The bigger the mirror, the more details the telescope can see. Its very difficult to launch a giant, heavy mirror into space. So, engineers gave the Webb telescope 18 smaller mirrors that fit together like a puzzle. The mirrors fold up inside the rocket, then unfold to form one large mirror in orbit.
Why are the mirrors gold? A thin layer of gold helps the mirrors reflect infrared light!
Could life survive on this faraway planet? Astronomers study the light from stars and planets to see if they might have the ingredients for life. Animation credit: NASA/ESA/Dani Player (STScI), Music credit: Steve Combs
Our solar system isnt the only home for planets! Scientists have discovered thousands of planets orbiting stars other than our Sun. These are called exoplanets. The James Webb Space Telescope will help to study the atmospheres of exoplanets. Could the atmospheres of some exoplanets hold the building blocks for life? We will find out soon!
The James Webb Space Telescope launched on December 25, 2021. Want to stay up to date and learn more about NASAs biggest and most powerful telescope? Check out this cool timeline to learn what the telescope is doing right now! Also, Find more facts, photos, videos and more at the James Webb Space Telescope Website!
NASA Exoplanets: What is the habitable zone?James Webb Space Telescope PosterLesson Plans, Activities, Resources & Programs For Informal EducationTeachable Moment: Learn About the Universe With the James Webb Space Telescope
Continued here:
The Launch – Webb/NASA
The James Webb Space Telescope was launched on an Ariane 5 rocket, one of the world's most reliable launch vehicles.
+
The James Webb Space Telescope was launched on an Ariane 5 rocket. The launch vehicle and launch site are part of the European Space Agency's contribution to the mission. The Ariane 5 is one of the world's most reliable launch vehicles and was chosen for a combination of reliability (it was the only launch vehicle that met NASA's requirements for launching a mission like Webb) and for the value it brings via our international partnership. Read more about why the Ariane 5 was chosen.
Webb was launched from Arianespace's ELA-3 launch complex at Europe's Spaceport located near Kourou, French Guiana. It is beneficial for launch sites to be located near the equator - the spin of the Earth can help give an additional push. The surface of the Earth at the equator is moving at 1670 km/hr.
The Launch Segment has 3 primary components:
1. Launch Vehicle: an Ariane 5 with the cryogenic upper stage. Provided in the single launch configuration, with a long payload fairing providing a maximum 4.57 meter static diameter and useable length of 16.19 meters.
2. Payload Adapter, comprising the Cone 3936 plus ACU 2624 lower cylinder and clamp-band, which provides the separating mechanical and electrical interface between the Webb Observatory and the Launch Vehicle.
3. Launch campaign preparation and launch campaign. The launch campaign preparation and launch campaign is the mutual responsibility of NASA, ESA, Northrop Grumman and ArianeSpace.
Read the rest here:
Who Is James Webb – Webb/NASA
+
James E. Webb ran the fledgling space agency from February 1961 to October 1968. He believed that NASA had to strike a balance between human space flight and science.
The man whose name NASA has chosen to bestow upon the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope is most commonly linked to the Apollo moon program, not to science.
Yet, many believe that James E. Webb, who ran the fledgling space agency from February 1961 to October 1968, did more for science than perhaps any other government official and that it is only fitting that the Next Generation Space Telescope would be named after him.
(High-res pic available, credit: NASA)
Webb's record of support for space science would support those views. Although President John Kennedy had committed the nation to landing a man on the moon before the end of the decade, Webb believed that the space program was more than a political race. He believed that NASA had to strike a balance between human space flight and science because such a combination would serve as a catalyst for strengthening the nation's universities and aerospace industry.
As part of an oral history project sponsored by the LBJ Library in Austin, Texas, Webb recalled his conversations with Kennedy and Vice President Lyndon Johnson. He was quoted as saying in one transcript, "And so far as I'm concerned, I'm not going to run a program that's just a one-shot program. If you want me to be the administrator, it's going to be a balanced program that does the job for the country..."
Webb's vision of a balanced program resulted in a decade of space science research that remains unparalleled today. During his tenure, NASA invested in the development of robotic spacecraft, which explored the lunar environment so that astronauts could do so later, and it sent scientific probes to Mars and Venus, giving Americans their first-ever view of the strange landscape of outer space. As early as 1965, Webb also had written that a major space telescope, then known as the Large Space Telescope, should become a major NASA effort.
By the time Webb retired just a few months before the first moon landing in July 1969, NASA had launched more than 75 space science missions to study the stars and galaxies, our own Sun and the as-yet unknown environment of space above the Earth's atmosphere. Missions such as the Orbiting Solar Observatory and the Explorer series of astronomical satellites built the foundation for the most successful period of astronomical discovery in history, which continues today.
Webb supported science behind the scenes, as well. Shortly after assuming the job vacated by Keith Glennan, Webb chose to continue the same basic organization that his predecessor had adopted for the selection of science programs. However, he enhanced the role of scientists in key ways. He gave them greater control in the selection process of science missions and he created the NASA University Program, which established grants for space research, funded the construction of new laboratories at universities and provided fellowships for graduate students. The program also encouraged university presidents and vice presidents to actively participate in NASA's Space Science Program and to publicly support all of NASA's programs.
This record of accomplishment is perhaps more notable given Webb's initial reluctance to accept the job. An experienced manager, attorney and businessman, the North Carolina native had served as Director of the Bureau of the Budget and as Undersecretary of State in the Truman administration. Webb also served as president and vice president of several private firms and served on the board of directors of the McDonnell Aircraft Company. He was not, however, a scientist or engineer-something he noted when President Kennedy asked him to consider the job as NASA Administrator.
He told an interviewer that, "I felt that I had made the pattern of my life, and I was not really the best person for this anyway. It seemed to me someone who knew more about rocketry, about space, would be a better person." Kennedy did not see it that way. With his keen political savvy and exceptional managerial skills, Webb was perfect for the job, the President believed. He made it clear to Webb that the NASA Administrator's job was a policy job. He needed someone who could handle the large issues of national and international policies.
The scientific community was equally anxious about Webb. The scientists at NASA Headquarters had wanted someone with a keen interest in space science and a desire to bolster the involvement of universities in the space program. Within a few months, Webb proved where he stood.
At the height of the Apollo program, NASA had 35,000 employees and more than 400,000 contractors in thousands of companies and universities across the U.S. Under Webb's direction, the agency undertook one of the most impressive projects in history-landing a man on the moon before the end of the decade.
As NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said when he announced the new name for the next generation space telescope, "It is fitting that Hubble's successor be named in honor of James Webb. Thanks to his efforts, we got our first glimpses at the dramatic landscape of outer space. He took our nation on its first voyages of exploration, turning our imagination into reality. Indeed, he laid the foundations at NASA for one of the most successful periods of astronomical discovery. As a result, we're rewriting the textbooks today with the help of the Hubble Space Telescope , the Chandra X-ray Observatory , and the James Webb Telescope."
The rest is here:
James Webb Space Telescope reveals alien planet’s atmosphere like never …
A boiling Saturn-like planet 700 light-years away from the sun has become the best-explored planet outside our solar system. The James Webb Space Telescope's measurements of the planet's atmosphere have revealed unprecedented details of its chemistry, and even allowed astronomers to test methods for detecting alien life.
The exoplanet WASP-39b, which orbits a star in the constellation Virgo, made headlines in late August when the James Webb Space Telescope (Webb or JWST) found carbon dioxide in its atmosphere. It was the first ever such detection and experts hailed the finding as a major breakthrough. Now, less than three months later, an avalanche of studies based on the grand telescope's observations have revealed the most minute details of WASP-39b's atmosphere, which even enabled astronomers to make conclusions about the exoplanet's formation history.
"These early observations are a harbinger of more amazing science to come with JWST," Laura Kreidberg, director of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy (MPIA) in Germany who was involved in the observations, said in a statement. "We put the telescope through its paces to test the performance, and it was nearly flawless even better than we hoped."
Related: James Webb Space Telescope snags its 1st direct photo of an alien world
Astronomers used three out of Webb's four instruments to observe the distant planet: the main NIRCam camera and the two spectroscopes NIRISS and NIRSpec, which split light from the observed objects into light spectra, the barcode-like fingerprints that reveal the chemical compositions of the observed planets and stars.
The observations revealed that WASP-39b is shrouded in thick clouds containing sulfur and silicates. These chemicals interact with the light of the parent star, producing sulfur dioxide in a reaction similar to the one that produces ozone in Earth's atmosphere.
WASP-39b is a gas giant about one-third the size of the solar system's largest planet, Jupiter, and orbits only 4.3 million miles (7 million kilometers) away from its parent star, or eight times closer than the distance of the solar system's innermost planet Mercury from the sun.
The sheer intensity of starlight that batters WASP-39b makes the planet an ideal laboratory for studying such photochemical reactions, scientists said in the statement.
The level of detail provided by JWST allowed astronomers to peek into WASP-39b's past and learn how this hot and scorching world came into being. From the ratios of carbon to oxygen, of potassium to oxygen, and of sulfur to hydrogen in the planet's atmosphere, the researchers inferred that the gas giant planet must have formed from collisions of several smaller planetesimals. In addition, the much higher abundance of oxygen compared to carbon in the thick clouds revealed that WASP-39b formed much farther away from its star than it orbits today.
"Data like these are a game changer," Natalia Batalha, a professor of astronomy and astrophysics at the University of California at Santa Cruz who coordinated the observing program, said in the statement.
The observations even allowed astronomers to test methods that one day could help detect life on other exoplanets. That detection would rely on a similar atmospheric analysis as conducted on WASP-39b, then compare the results with models of alien planets. If the planet displays more oxygen than those models predict, for example, it could be a sign of life.
WASP-39b, however, due to its proximity to its parent star, is an improbable candidate to host extraterrestrial life as temperature on the planet soars to an unlivable 1,650 degrees Fahrenheit (900 degrees Celsius).
Five new studies (1,2,3,4,5) based on JWST data are under review or in press with the journal Nature.
Follow Tereza Pultarova on Twitter @TerezaPultarova. Follow us on Twitter @Spacedotcom and on Facebook.
Originally posted here:
James Webb Space Telescope reveals alien planet's atmosphere like never ...
Rockall – Wikipedia
Uninhabited islet in the North Atlantic Ocean
Rockall () is an uninhabitable granite islet situated in the North Atlantic Ocean. The United Kingdom claims that Rockall lies within its exclusive economic zone (EEZ)[1] and is part of its territory, but this claim is not recognised by Ireland.[2][3] It and the nearby skerries of Hasselwood Rock and Helen's Reef are the only emergent parts of the Rockall Plateau. The rock was formed by magmatism as part of the North Atlantic Igneous Province during the Paleogene.
Rockall's approximate distances from the closest islands in each direction are as follows: It is 301.3 kilometres (187.2 statute miles; 162.7 nautical miles) west of Soay, Scotland;[4] 423.2km (263.0mi; 228.5nmi) northwest of Tory Island, Ireland;[5] and 700 kilometres (430 statute miles; 380 nautical miles) south of Iceland.[6]The nearest permanently inhabited place is North Uist, an island in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland, 370 kilometres (230mi; 200nmi) to the east.[3]
The United Kingdom claimed Rockall in 1955 and incorporated it as a part of Scotland in 1972. The UK does not make a claim to extended EEZ based on Rockall, as it has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which says that "rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf".[1] However, such features are entitled to a territorial sea extending 12 nautical miles (22 kilometres). Ireland's position is that Rockall does not even generate a 12-nautical-mile territorial sea for the United Kingdom owing to the UK's uncertain title to Rockall.[7][8] Ireland does not recognize the UK's claim, although it has never sought to claim sovereignty of Rockall for itself.[9][10] The consistent position of successive Irish governments has been that Rockall and similar rocks and skerries have no significance for establishing legal claims to mineral rights in the adjacent seabed or to fishing rights in the surrounding seas.[9]
The origin and meaning of the islet's name Rockall is uncertain. The Scottish Gaelic name for the islet, Rcal, may derive from an Old Norse name that may contain the element fjall, meaning 'mountain'.[11] It has also been suggested that the name is from the Norse *rok, meaning 'foaming sea', and kollr, meaning 'bald head'a word which appears in other placenames in Scandinavian-speaking areas.[12] Another idea is that it derives from the Gaelic Sgeir Rocail, meaning 'skerry of roaring' or 'sea rock of roaring'[13] (although rocail can also be translated as 'tearing' or 'ripping').[14][15]
The Dutch mapmakers Petrus Plancius and C. Claesz[nl], show an island called Rookol northwest of Ireland on their Map of New France and the Northern Atlantic Ocean (Amsterdam, c.1594). The first literary reference to the island, which is called Rokol, is found in Martin Martin's A Description of the Western Isles of Scotland, published in 1703. This book gives an account of a voyage to the archipelago of St Kilda, and Martin states: "...and from it lies Rokol, a small rock sixty leagues [300km] to the westward of St Kilda; the inhabitants of this place call it Rokabarra."[16]
The name Rocabarraigh is also used in Scottish Gaelic folklore for a mythical rock which is supposed to appear three times, its last appearance being at the end of the world: "Nuair a thig Rocabarra ris, is dual gun tid an Saoghal a sgrios". ('When Rocabarra returns, the world will likely come to be destroyed').[17]
Rockall's name has also been used in Irish mythology; one story describes how legendary giant Fionn mac Cumhaill (Finn McCool) scooped up a chunk of Ireland to fling at a Scottish rival. It instead missed and landed in the Irish Sea the pebble left behind formed Rockall, while the clump became the Isle of Man and the void left behind filled with water and eventually became Lough Neagh.[18][19]
There can be no place more desolate, despairing and awful.
The 17.15-metre-high (56.3ft) rock has been noted in written records since the late 16th century.[21][22] In the 20th century, its location became relevant due to potential oil and fishing rights that might accrue to a nation recognized as having a legitimate claim to it.[citation needed]
In 1955 the British landed on Rockall and claimed it for the United Kingdom.[23] The United Kingdom formally annexed the islet in 1972.[24] According to Ian Mitchell, Rockall was terra nullius (owned by no one) until the 1955 British claim was made.[citation needed]
Rockall gives its name to one of the sea areas named in the shipping forecast provided by the British Meteorological Office.
Rockall has been a point of interest for adventurers and amateur radio operators, who have variously landed on or briefly occupied the islet. Fewer than 20 individuals have ever been confirmed to have landed on Rockall, and the longest known continuous occupation is 45 days (achieved in 2014 by a solo person).[25] In a House of Commons debate in 1971, William Ross, Labour MP for Kilmarnock, said: "More people have landed on the moon than have landed on Rockall" (however only twelve people have landed on the moon, so while possibly true at the time, it is no longer correct.)[20]
The earliest recorded date of landing on the island is often given as 8 July 1810, when a Royal Navy officer named Basil Hall led a small landing party from the frigate HMSEndymion to the summit. However, research by James Fisher (see below), in the log of Endymion and elsewhere, indicates that the actual date for this first landing was on Sunday 8 September 1811.[26]
The landing party left Endymion for the rock by boat. Whilst there, Endymion, which was taking depth measurements around Rockall, lost visual contact with the rock as a haze descended. The ship drifted away, leaving the landing party stranded. The expedition made a brief attempt to return to the ship, but could not find the frigate in the haze, and soon gave up and returned to Rockall. After the haze became a fog, the lookout sent to the top of Rockall spotted the ship again, but it turned away from Rockall before the expedition in their boats reached it. Finally, just before sunset, the frigate was again spotted from the top of Rockall, and the expedition was able to get back on board. The crew of Endymion reported that they had been searching for five or six hours, firing their cannon every ten minutes. Hall related this experience and other adventures in a book entitled Fragment of Voyages and Travels Including Anecdotes of a Naval Life.
The next landing was by a Mr Johns of HMS Porcupine whilst the ship was on a mission, (between June and August 1862), to make a survey of the sea bed prior to the laying of a transatlantic telegraph cable. Johns managed to gain foothold on the island, but failed to reach the summit.
On 18 September 1955, Rockall was annexed by the British Crown when Lieutenant-Commander Desmond Scott RN, Sergeant Brian Peel RM, Corporal AA Fraser RM, and James Fisher (a civilian naturalist and former Royal Marine), were winched onto the island by a Royal Navy helicopter from HMSVidal (coincidentally named after the man who first charted the island). The annexation of Rockall was announced by the Admiralty on 21 September 1955.[27]
The expedition team cemented in a brass plaque on Hall's Ledge and hoisted the Union Flag to stake the UK's claim. The inscription on the plaque read:
BY AUTHORITY OF HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH THE SECOND, BY THE GRACE OF GOD OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND OF HER OTHER REALMS AND TERRITORIES, QUEEN, HEAD OF THE COMMONWEALTH, DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, ETC. ETC. ETC. AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH HER MAJESTY'S INSTRUCTIONS DATED 14. 9. 55. A LANDING WAS EFFECTED ON THIS DAY UPON THE ISLAND OF ROCKALL FROM H.M.S. VIDAL. THE UNION FLAG WAS HOISTED AND POSSESSION OF THE ISLAND WAS TAKEN IN THE NAME OF HER MAJESTY. [Signed] R H Connell, CAPTAIN, H.M.S. VIDAL, 18 SEPTEMBER 1955
It was the final territorial expansion of the British empire.[28]
The initial incentive for the annexation was the test-firing of the UK's first guided nuclear weapon, the American-made Corporal missile. The missile was to be launched from South Uist and sent over the North Atlantic. The Ministry of Defence was concerned that the unclaimed island would provide an opportunity for the Soviet Union to spy on the test. Consequently, in April 1955 an order was issued to the Admiralty to seize the island and declare UK sovereignty, lest it become an outpost for foreign observers.
On 7 November 1955, J. Abrach Mackay, a member of the Clan Mackay, made a protest about the annexation; the 84-year-old local councillor declared: "My old father, God rest his soul, claimed that island for the Clan of Mackay in 1846 and I now demand that the Admiralty hand it back. It's no' theirs'." The British Government ignored the protests, which were soon forgotten.[20][29]
In 1971,[30] Captain T R Kirkpatrick RE led the landing party on a government expedition named "Operation Top Hat" that was mounted from RFA Engadine to establish that the rock was part of the United Kingdom and to prepare the islet for the installation of a light beacon. The landing party included Royal Engineers, Royal Marines and civilian members from the Institute of Geological Sciences in London. The party was landed by winch line from the Wessex 5 helicopters of the Royal Naval Air Services Commando Headquarters Squadron, commanded by Lt Cmdr Neil Foster RN. As well as collecting samples of the aegerine granite, rockallite, for later analysis in London, the top of the rock was blown off using a newly developed blasting technique, Precision Pre-Splitting. This created a level area that was drilled to take the anchorages for the light beacon that was installed the following year. Two phosphor bronze plates were chased into the wall above Hall's Ledge, each secured by four 80-tonne rock-anchor bolts; there was no evidence of the brass plate installed in 1955.
Establishing that the rock is part of the United Kingdom and its development as a light beacon facilitated the incorporation of the island into the District of Harris in the County of Inverness in the Island of Rockall Act 1972 and reinforced the UK Government's position with regard to seabed rights in the area.
In 1978,[31] eight members of the Dangerous Sports Club, including David Kirke, one of its founders, held a cocktail party on the island,[32] allegedly leaving with the plaque.[33]
Former SAS member and survival expert Tom McClean lived on the island from 26 May 1985 to 4 July 1985 to affirm the UK's claim to the islet.[34]
Global State of Waveland
Flag
Established
Disestablished
In 1997, the environmentalist organisation Greenpeace occupied the islet for a short time,[35] calling it Waveland, to protest against oil exploration. Greenpeace declared the island to be a "new Global State" (as a spoof micronation) and offered citizenship to anyone willing to take their pledge of allegiance. The British Government's response was to state that "Rockall is British territory. It is part of Scotland and anyone is free to go there and can stay as long as they please"[36] and otherwise ignore them. During his one night on Rockall, Greenpeace protester and Guardian journalist John Vidal unscrewed the 1955 plaque and re-fixed it back-to-front.[37] Micronation continued after leaving the island until 1999.
In June 2005 the first amateur radio (ham radio) activation of Rockall took place when the club station MS0IRC/P was set up and operated for a few hours on HF frequencies before they had to close down due to approaching bad weather. The IOTA number EU-189 was issued to Rockall as a result of this activation.
In 2010, it was revealed that the plaque had gone missing. An Englishman, Andy Strangeway, announced his intention to land on the island and affix a replacement plaque in June 2010.[38] The Western Isles Council have approved planning permission for the plaque.[39] The 2010 expedition was cancelled, but Strangeway still intends to replace the plaque.[40][needs update]
In October 2011 a group of amateur radio (ham radio) operators from Belgium travelled by ship to Rockall. Several of them climbed up the rocks and set up a radio station for some hours. They stayed overnight on top of the island. Radio contacts to all over the world were made using HF frequencies under the call sign "MM0RAI/P".[citation needed]
In 2013 an occupation of the island by explorer Nick Hancock to raise money for the charity Help for Heroes was planned. The challenge was to land on Rockall and survive solo for 60 days.[41] On 31 May 2013, Hancock, and a TV crew from BBC's The One Show, sailed to the islet aboard Orca III, and he made his first unsuccessful attempt to land on the islet.[42][43] The weather conditions at the time "were not favourable" according to a Maritime and Coastguard Agency official. Subsequently, Hancock postponed his challenge until 2014.[44] On 5 June 2014 Hancock landed on Rockall to begin his 60-day survival.[45] Despite being forced to cut his 60-day goal short after losing supplies in a storm, Hancock did remain on the island for 45 days, beating McClean's occupancy record by five days.[46][47]
The "Round Rockall" sailing race, sponsored by Galway Bay Sailing Club, runs from Galway, Ireland, around Rockall and back. It was held in 2012 to coincide with the finish of the 201112 Volvo Ocean Race around the world.[48]
The 20152016 Clipper Round the World Yacht Race race 12 from New York to Derry was extended around Rockall despite previous promises to crew from Sir Robin Knox-Johnston that this would not happen again after the race to Danang.[49]
In 2017, the Safehaven Marine team led by Frank Kowalski set a world record for the Long Way Round Circumnavigation of Ireland via Rockall island. The Baracuda-style naval patrol, search and rescue vessel, Thunder Child, completed the route in 34 hours, 1 minute, and 47 seconds.[50] Set in an anti-clockwise direction, the new record the first of its kind is now subject to ratification by Irish Sailing and the Union Internationale Motonautique, the world governing board for all powerboat activity.
During Queen Elizabeth II's platinum jubilee celebrations in June 2022, Dr. Chris Grieco and Campbell Cameron had intended to live on the rock for one week to raise 1 million for the Children's Hospice South West and The Royal Navy charity.[51][52] The trip was also being supported by Nick Hancock, who is the world record holder for occupation of the Rock. The attempt at Rockall was cancelled due to the unavailability of a vessel. A new team including Campbell Cameron VR RNR FRGS and Chris Thrall, a former Royal Marine Commando,[53] is planned to go ahead in June 2023, with the goal of beating the world record currently held by Nick Hancock FRGS.
Rockall is one of the few pinnacles of the surrounding Helen's Reef; it is located 301.3 kilometres (162.7 nautical miles) west of the uninhabited islet of Soay, St Kilda, Scotland,[4] and 423.2 kilometres (263.0 statute miles; 228.5 nautical miles) northwest of Tory Island, County Donegal, Ireland.[5] Its location was precisely determined by Nick Hancock during his 2014 expedition.[54] The surrounding elevated seabed is called the Rockall Bank, lying directly south from an area known as the Rockall Plateau. It is separated from the Outer Hebrides by the Rockall Trough, itself located within the Rockall Basin (also known as the "Hatton Rockall Basin").[citation needed]
In 1956 the British scientist James Fisher referred to the island as "the most isolated small rock in the oceans of the world".[55] The neighbouring Hasselwood Rock and several other pinnacles of the surrounding Helen's Reef are smaller, at half the size of Rockall or less, and equally remote, but those formations are legally not islands or points on land, as they are often submerged completely, only revealed momentarily above certain types of ocean surface waves.
Rockall is about 25 metres (80ft) wide and 31m (102ft) long at its base[56] and rises sheer to a height of 17.15m (56ft 3in).[21][57][22] It is often washed over by large storm waves, particularly in winter. There is a small ledge of 3.5 by 1.3m (11ft 6in by 4ft 3in), known as Hall's Ledge, four metres (13ft) from the summit on the rock's western face.[58] It is the only named geographical location on the rock.
The nearest point on land from Rockall is 301.3 kilometres (162.7nmi), east at the uninhabited Scottish island of Soay in the St Kilda archipelago. The nearest inhabited area lies 303.2 kilometres (163.7nmi) east at Hirta[59][original research?], the largest island in the St. Kilda group, which is populated intermittently at a single military base.[60][61] The nearest permanently inhabited settlement is 366.8km (198.1nmi) west of the headland of Aird an Rnair,[62] near the crofting township of Hogha Gearraidh on the island of North Uist at NF705711 (573633N 7317W / 57.60917N 7.51861W / 57.60917; -7.51861 (Hogha Gearraidh / Hougharry)). North Uist is part of Na h-Eileanan Siar council area of Scotland.
The exact position of Rockall and the size and shape of the Rockall Bank was first charted in 1831 by Captain A. T. E. Vidal, a Royal Navy surveyor. The first scientific expedition to Rockall was led by Miller Christy in 1896 when the Royal Irish Academy sponsored a study of the flora and fauna.[63] They chartered the Granuaile.[55][64]
A detailed underwater mapping of the area around Rockall undertaken in 20112012 by Marine Scotland showed that Rockall itself is a minor pinnacle, whilst Helen's Reef extends in a sweeping arc of fissures and ridges to the north-west of the islet. Between the islet and Helen's Reef is a deeper trench much used by squid fishermen.[65]
Rockall is located in the pathway of the warming and moderating Gulf Stream. Although the rock does not sustain any weather station, the isolated nature of the setting dictates an extremely maritime climate without heat or cold extremes.
Rockall is made of a type of peralkaline granite that is relatively rich in sodium and potassium. Within this granite are darker bands richer in iron because they contain two iron-sodium silicate minerals called aegirine and riebeckite. The darker bands are a type of granite that geologists have named "rockallite", although use of this term is now discouraged.[66][67]
In 1975, a mineral new to science was discovered in a rock sample from Rockall. The mineral is called bazirite, named after the chemical elements barium and zirconium. Bazirite has the chemical composition BaZrSi3O9.[68]
Rockall forms part of the deeply eroded Rockall Igneous Centre that was formed as part of the North Atlantic Igneous Province.[69] It was formed approximately 52 8 million years ago based on rubidiumstrontium dating,[70] as part of the breakup of Laurasia. Greenland and Europe separated and the northeast Atlantic Ocean was formed between them,[66] eventually leaving Rockall as an isolated islet.
The RV Celtic Explorer surveyed the Rockall Bank in 2003.[71] The Irish Light Vessel Granuaile (the same name as the steamer on the RIA 1896 botany survey) was chartered by the Geological Survey of Ireland, on behalf of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, to conduct a seismic survey of the Rockall Bank and the Hatton Bank in July 2004,[72] as part of the Irish National Seabed Survey.[72]
The island's only permanent macro-organism inhabitants are common periwinkles and other marine molluscs. Small numbers of seabirds, mainly fulmars, northern gannets, black-legged kittiwakes, and common guillemots, use the rock for resting in summer, and gannets and guillemots occasionally breed successfully if the summer is calm with no storm waves washing over the rock. In total there have been just over twenty species of seabird and six other animal species observed (including the aforementioned molluscs) on or near the islet.
Cold-water coral biogenic reefs have been identified on the wider Rockall Bank,[73] which are contributing features for the East Rockall Bank and North-West Rockall Bank SACs.[74][75]
In December 2013 surveys by Marine Scotland discovered four new species of animals in the sea around Rockall. These are believed to live in an area where hydrocarbons are released from the sea bed, known as a cold seep. The discovery has raised the issue of restricting some forms of fishery to protect the sea bed.[76] The species are:
Irish claims to Rockall are based on its proximity to the Irish mainland;[77] however, the country has never formally claimed sovereignty over the rock. Although Rockall is closer to the UK coast than to the Irish coast,[4][5] Ireland does not recognise the UK's territorial claim to Rockall, "which would be the basis for a claim to a 12-mile territorial sea".[9][78]
Ireland regards Rockall as irrelevant when determining the boundaries of the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) as the rock is uninhabitable[2][79][80] and in signing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1997, the UK has agreed that "Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf".
In 1988, Ireland and the United Kingdom signed an EEZ boundary agreement, ignoring the rock per UNCLOS.[2] With effect from 31 March 2014, the UK and Ireland published EEZ limits which include Rockall within the UK's EEZ.[81][82]
In October 2012, the Irish Independent published a picture of the Irish Navy ship L Risn sailing past Rockall conducting routine maritime security patrols, and claimed that it was exercising Ireland's sovereign rights over the rock.[83]
The UK claims Rockall along with a 12-nautical-mile-radius (22km) territorial sea around the islet inside the country's exclusive economic zone (EEZ).[1] The UK also claims "a circle of UK sovereign airspace over the islet of Rockall".[1]
The UK claimed Rockall on 18 September 1955 when "Two Royal Marines and a civilian naturalist, led by Royal Navy officer Lieutenant Commander Desmond Scott, raised a Union flag on the islet and cemented a plaque into the rock".[84] Prior to this Rockall was legally terra nullius.[85] In 1972, the British Island of Rockall Act formally annexed Rockall to the United Kingdom.[85]
The UK considers the rock administratively part of the Isle of Harris and, under the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 a large sea area around it was declared to be under the jurisdiction of Scots law. A navigational beacon was installed on the island in 1982[86] and the UK declared that no ship would be allowed within a 50-nautical-mile (93km) radius of the rock.[citation needed] However, in 1997, the UK ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), limiting territorial sea claims to a 12-nautical-mile (22km) radius, and therefore allowing free passage in waters beyond this.
In 1988, the United Kingdom and Ireland signed an EEZ boundary agreement for which "the location of Rockall was irrelevant to the determination of the boundary".[2] In 1997, the UK ratified UNCLOS, which states that "Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf".
As the rock lies within the United Kingdom's EEZ, the UK has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources of the area, including jurisdiction over the protection and preservation of the marine environment.[81][87]
In May 2017, declassified documents revealed that the 1955 decision to claim the rock as UK territory was motivated by worries that it could otherwise be used by "hostile agents" to spy on the future South Uist missile testing range.[88]
Early in January 2021, after the UK left the European Union, the Northern Celt, an Irish fishing boat based out of Greencastle, County Donegal, was ordered to leave the 12-nautical-mile zone around Rockall by officers of Marine Scotland.[89]
There have been various disasters on the neighbouring Hasselwood Rock and Helen's Reef (the latter was named in 1830).
Notes
Bibliography
Read more here:
Fashion and Beauty Forum – clothes, shoes, hair care, skin … – City-Data
PJSaturn
06-03-2014 11:06 PMby PJSaturn
Remington Steel
Today 07:56 PMby rohulhos
eddiehaskell
Today 07:54 PMby rohulhos
FrankAce
Today 07:53 PMby rohulhos
WestieWhitie
Today 07:48 PMby rohulhos
Cida
Today 07:47 PMby rohulhos
Voebe
Today 07:41 PMby rohulhos
victimofGM
Yesterday 07:57 PMby king john IV
oli150194
12-26-2022 02:42 PMby Monello
sheena12
12-25-2022 05:56 PMby mschrief
Jo48
12-25-2022 05:12 PMby 2goldens
southkakkatlantan
12-21-2022 05:54 AMby gentlearts
JD59
12-18-2022 10:23 AMby fleetiebelle
Jakealope
12-17-2022 02:11 PMby OtterTrees
whatsgoingon4
12-15-2022 07:09 PMby sheena12
selhars
12-15-2022 10:14 AMby Hemlock140
selhars
12-10-2022 05:33 PMby gentlearts
unclemikey
12-10-2022 12:36 AMby MKTwet
WestieWhitie
12-08-2022 06:46 PMby Threestep2
pathrunner
12-08-2022 11:41 AMby pathrunner
HappyFarm34
12-07-2022 10:37 PMby Buckeye77
Sand&Salt
12-06-2022 11:19 AMby Sand&Salt
A New Day
12-05-2022 01:12 PMby A New Day
Sand&Salt
12-05-2022 12:06 PMby Driver 47
Sassybluesy
12-03-2022 12:40 PMby Shallow Hal
hertfordshire
11-30-2022 08:43 PMby mschrief
Commett
11-28-2022 04:19 PMby gypsychic
Boffking
11-27-2022 11:00 PMby JaxRhapsody
Srijana_01
11-26-2022 11:06 AMby dizzybint
Jon Iverson
11-26-2022 10:57 AMby dizzybint
MKTwet
11-23-2022 01:58 PMby Driver 47
Follow this link:
Fashion and Beauty Forum - clothes, shoes, hair care, skin ... - City-Data
Shipping forecast and gale warnings – Met Office
Coast and sea
The general synopsis at midnight
New low expected Rockall 982 by midnight tonight
Issued at:05:05 (UTC) on Fri 30 Dec 2022.
For the period06:00 (UTC) on Fri 30 Dec 2022to06:00 (UTC) on Sat 31 Dec 2022.
Select a sea areaShow all areas Viking North Utsire South Utsire Forties Cromarty Forth Tyne Dogger Fisher German Bight Humber Thames Dover Wight Portland Plymouth Biscay Trafalgar FitzRoy Sole Lundy Fastnet Irish Sea Shannon Rockall Malin Hebrides Bailey Fair Isle Faeroes Southeast Iceland
Issued: 15:50 (UTC) on Thu 29 Dec 2022
Gale force 8 backing southerly and increasing severe gale force 9 later
Issued: 21:56 (UTC) on Thu 29 Dec 2022
Gale now ceased but southerly severe gale force 9 expected later
Issued: 15:50 (UTC) on Thu 29 Dec 2022
Gale force 8 backing southerly and increasing severe gale force 9 later
Issued: 15:50 (UTC) on Thu 29 Dec 2022
Gale force 8 backing southerly and increasing severe gale force 9 later
Issued: 21:56 (UTC) on Thu 29 Dec 2022
Gale now ceased but southerly severe gale force 9 expected soon, veering westerly later
Issued: 21:56 (UTC) on Thu 29 Dec 2022
Gale now ceased but southerly severe gale force 9 expected soon, veering westerly later
Issued: 21:56 (UTC) on Thu 29 Dec 2022
Gale now ceased but southerly severe gale force 9 expected soon
Issued: 15:50 (UTC) on Thu 29 Dec 2022
Gale force 8 backing southerly and increasing severe gale force 9 later
Issued: 15:50 (UTC) on Thu 29 Dec 2022
Gale force 8 backing southerly and increasing severe gale force 9 later
Issued: 15:50 (UTC) on Thu 29 Dec 2022
Gale force 8 backing southerly and increasing severe gale force 9 later
Issued: 21:56 (UTC) on Thu 29 Dec 2022
Gale now ceased but southerly severe gale force 9 expected soon
Issued: 21:56 (UTC) on Thu 29 Dec 2022
Gale now ceased but southerly severe gale force 9 expected soon
Issued: 15:50 (UTC) on Thu 29 Dec 2022
Gale now ceased but southerly severe gale force 9 expected later
Issued: 15:50 (UTC) on Thu 29 Dec 2022
Gale now ceased but southerly severe gale force 9 expected later
Issued: 15:50 (UTC) on Thu 29 Dec 2022
Gale now ceased but southerly severe gale force 9 expected later
Issued: 15:50 (UTC) on Thu 29 Dec 2022
Southerly gale 8 expected soon, increasing severe gale 9 later
Issued: 03:42 (UTC) on Fri 30 Dec 2022
Southwesterly gale force 8 continuing, increasing severe gale force 9 later
Issued: 15:50 (UTC) on Thu 29 Dec 2022
Southwesterly gale force 8 expected later
Forecast issued: 00:15 (UTC) on Fri 30 Dec 2022
Issued: 15:50 (UTC) on Thu 29 Dec 2022
Southwesterly gale force 8 increasing severe gale force 9 soon
Issued: 09:48 (UTC) on Thu 29 Dec 2022
Gale now ceased but southerly gale force 8 expected soon
Issued: 21:56 (UTC) on Thu 29 Dec 2022
Southwesterly gale force 8 continuing
Issued: 21:56 (UTC) on Thu 29 Dec 2022
Southwesterly gale force 8 continuing
Issued: 03:42 (UTC) on Fri 30 Dec 2022
Southerly severe gale force 9 continuing, decreasing gale force 8 imminent, veering southwesterly soon
Issued: 21:56 (UTC) on Thu 29 Dec 2022
Southwesterly gale force 8 continuing
Issued: 21:56 (UTC) on Thu 29 Dec 2022
Southwesterly gale force 8 veering northwesterly and increasing severe gale force 9 soon
Issued: 21:56 (UTC) on Thu 29 Dec 2022
Southerly gale force 8 veering westerly and increasing severe gale force 9 later
Issued: 01:22 (UTC) on Fri 30 Dec 2022
Gale now ceased but northeasterly severe gale force 9 expected soon
Issued: 21:56 (UTC) on Thu 29 Dec 2022
Gale now ceased but northeasterly gale force 8 expected soon
Issued: 03:42 (UTC) on Fri 30 Dec 2022
Gale now ceased but northeasterly severe gale force 9 expected soon
Issued: 03:42 (UTC) on Fri 30 Dec 2022
Gale now ceased but northeasterly gale force 8 expected soon
Issued: 15:50 (UTC) on Thu 29 Dec 2022
Storm force 10 backing northerly and decreasing severe gale force 9 imminent, then decreasing gale force 8 soon
The shipping forecast is issued four times a day at 2300, 0500, 1100, 1700 UTC and covers a period of 24 hours from 0000, 0600, 1200 and 1800 UTC respectively.
The waters around the British Isles are divided into 31 sea areas shown on the map.
The forecast contains details of gale warnings in force, a general synopsis and sea-area forecasts containing wind direction and force, sea state, weather and visibility.
Gale warnings are issued as required throughout the day (for winds of Gale Force 8 or more).
In the UK, the Maritime & Coastguard Agency (MCA) is responsible for the provision of Maritime Safety Information (MSI) to ships at sea, which includes the broadcast of warnings and forecasts. The Met Office initiates warnings and prepares routine forecasts for dissemination on behalf of the MCA.
Caution: The internet is not part of the Maritime Safety Information system and should never be relied upon as the only means to obtain the latest forecast and warning information. Access to the service may be interrupted or delayed from time to time, updates may also be delayed.
Please refer to GMDSS services, INMARSAT SafetyNET or international NAVTEX for the latest information. When using these web pages, always check that the page on your screen is not from your cache. Use the Refresh or Reload button if in any doubt.
View original post here:
Stem-cell therapy – Wikipedia
Use of stem cells to treat or prevent a disease or condition
Stem-cell therapy is the use of stem cells to treat or prevent a disease or condition.[1] As of 2016[update], the only established therapy using stem cells is hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.[2] This usually takes the form of a bone-marrow transplantation, but the cells can also be derived from umbilical cord blood. Research is underway to develop various sources for stem cells as well as to apply stem-cell treatments for neurodegenerative diseases[3] and conditions such as diabetes and heart disease.
Stem-cell therapy has become controversial following developments such as the ability of scientists to isolate and culture embryonic stem cells, to create stem cells using somatic cell nuclear transfer and their use of techniques to create induced pluripotent stem cells. This controversy is often related to abortion politics and to human cloning. Additionally, efforts to market treatments based on transplant of stored umbilical cord blood have been controversial.
For over 30 years, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) has been used to treat people with conditions such as leukaemia and lymphoma; this is the only widely practiced form of stem-cell therapy.[4][5][6] During chemotherapy, most growing cells are killed by the cytotoxic agents. These agents, however, cannot discriminate between the leukaemia or neoplastic cells, and the hematopoietic stem cells within the bone marrow. This is the side effect of conventional chemotherapy strategies that the stem-cell transplant attempts to reverse; a donor's healthy bone marrow reintroduces functional stem cells to replace the cells lost in the host's body during treatment. The transplanted cells also generate an immune response that helps to kill off the cancer cells; this process can go too far, however, leading to graft vs host disease, the most serious side effect of this treatment.[7]
Another stem-cell therapy, called Prochymal, was conditionally approved in Canada in 2012 for the management of acute graft-vs-host disease in children who are unresponsive to steroids.[8] It is an allogenic stem therapy based on mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) derived from the bone marrow of adult donors. MSCs are purified from the marrow, cultured and packaged, with up to 10,000 doses derived from a single donor. The doses are stored frozen until needed.[9]
The FDA has approved five hematopoietic stem-cell products derived from umbilical-cord blood, for the treatment of blood and immunological diseases.[10]
In 2014, the European Medicines Agency recommended approval of limbal stem cells for people with severe limbal stem cell deficiency due to burns in the eye.[11]
Stem cells are being studied for a number of reasons. The molecules and exosomes released from stem cells are also being studied in an effort to make medications.[12] In addition to the functions of the cells themselves, paracrine soluble factors produced by stem cells, known as the stem cell secretome, have been found to be another mechanism by which stem cell-based therapies mediate their effects in degenerative, autoimmune, and inflammatory diseases.[13]
To be used for research or treatment applications, large numbers of high-quality stem cells are needed. Thus, it is necessary to develop culture systems which produce pure populations of tissue-specific stem-cells in vitro without the loss of stem-cell potential. Two main approaches are taken for this purpose: two-dimensional and three-dimensional cell culture.[14]
Cell culture in two dimensions has been routinely performed in thousands of laboratories worldwide for the past four decades. In two-dimensional platforms, cells are typically exposed to a solid, rigid flat surface on the basal side and to liquid at the apicalsurface. Inhabiting such a two-dimensional rigid substrate requires a dramatic adaption for the surviving cells because they lack the extracellular matrix that is unique to each cell type and which may alter cell metabolism and reduce its functionality.[14]
Three-dimensional cell culture systems may create a biomimicking microenvironment for stem cells, resembling their native three-dimensional extracellular matrix (ECM). Advanced biomaterials have significantly contributed to three-dimensional cell culture systems in recent decades, and more unique and complex biomaterials have been proposed for improving stem-cell proliferation and controlled differentiation. Among them, nanostructured biomaterials are of particular interest because they have the advantage of a high surface-to-volume ratio, and they mimic the physical and biological features of natural ECM at the nanoscale.[14]
Research has been conducted on the effects of stem cells on animal models of brain degeneration, such as in Parkinson's disease, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and Alzheimer's disease.[15][16][17] Preliminary studies related to multiple sclerosis have been conducted,[18][19][20] and a 2020 phase 2 trial found significantly improved outcomes for mesenchymal stem cell treated patients compared to those receiving a sham treatment.[21] In January 2021 the FDA approved the first clinical trial for an investigational stem cell therapy to restore lost brain cells in people with advanced Parkinsons disease.[22]
Healthy adult brains contain neural stem cells, which divide to maintain general stem-cell numbers, or become progenitor cells. In healthy adult laboratory animals, progenitor cells migrate within the brain and function primarily to maintain neuron populations for olfaction (the sense of smell). Pharmacological activation of endogenous neural stem cells has been reported to induce neuroprotection and behavioral recovery in adult rat models of neurological disorder.[23][24][25]
Stroke and traumatic brain injury lead to cell death, characterized by a loss of neurons and oligodendrocytes within the brain. Clinical and animal studies have been conducted into the use of stem cells in cases of spinal cord injury.[26][27][28][20]
A small-scale study on individuals 60 year or older with aging frailty showed, after intravenous treatment with Mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) from healthy young donors, showed significant improvements in physical performance measures. MSC helps with the blockade of inflammation by decreasing it, causing the effects of frailty to reverse.
Stem cells are studied in people with severe heart disease.[29] The work by Bodo-Eckehard Strauer[30] was discredited by identifying hundreds of factual contradictions.[31] Among several clinical trials reporting that adult stem cell therapy is safe and effective, actual evidence of benefit has been reported from only a few studies.[32] Some preliminary clinical trials achieved only modest improvements in heart function following use of bone marrow stem cell therapy.[33][34]
Stem-cell therapy for treatment of myocardial infarction usually makes use of autologous bone-marrow stem cells, but other types of adult stem cells may be used, such as adipose-derived stem cells.[35]
Possible mechanisms of recovery include:[15]
In 2013, studies of autologous bone-marrow stem cells on ventricular function were found to contain "hundreds" of discrepancies.[36] Critics report that of 48 reports, just five underlying trials seemed to be used, and that in many cases whether they were randomized or merely observational accepter-versus-rejecter, was contradictory between reports of the same trial. One pair of reports of identical baseline characteristics and final results, was presented in two publications as, respectively, a 578-patient randomized trial and as a 391-subject observational study. Other reports required (impossible) negative standard deviations in subsets of people, or contained fractional subjects, negative NYHA classes. Overall, many more people were reported as having receiving stem cells in trials, than the number of stem cells processed in the hospital's laboratory during that time. A university investigation, closed in 2012 without reporting, was reopened in July 2013.[37]
In 2014, a meta-analysis on stem cell therapy using bone-marrow stem cells for heart disease revealed discrepancies in published clinical trial reports, whereby studies with a higher number of discrepancies showed an increase in effect sizes.[38] Another meta-analysis based on the intra-subject data of 12 randomized trials was unable to find any significant benefits of stem cell therapy on primary endpoints, such as major adverse events or increase in heart function measures, concluding there was no benefit.[39]
The TIME trial, which used a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial design, concluded that "bone marrow mononuclear cells administration did not improve recovery of LV function over 2 years" in people who had a myocardial infarction.[40] Accordingly, the BOOST-2 trial conducted in 10 medical centers in Germany and Norway reported that the trial result "does not support the use of nucleated BMCs in patients with STEMI and moderately reduced LVEF".[41] Furthermore, the trial also did not meet any other secondary MRI endpoints,[42] leading to a conclusion that intracoronary bone marrow stem cell therapy does not offer a functional or clinical benefit.[43]
The specificity of the human immune-cell repertoire is what allows the human body to defend itself from rapidly adapting antigens. However, the immune system is vulnerable to degradation upon the pathogenesis of disease, and because of the critical role that it plays in overall defense, its degradation is often fatal to the organism as a whole. Diseases of hematopoietic cells are diagnosed and classified via a subspecialty of pathology known as hematopathology. The specificity of the immune cells is what allows recognition of foreign antigens, causing further challenges in the treatment of immune disease. Identical matches between donor and recipient must be made for successful transplantation treatments, but matches are uncommon, even between first-degree relatives. Research using both hematopoietic adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells has provided insight into the possible mechanisms and methods of treatment for many of these ailments.[44]
Fully mature human red blood cells may be generated ex vivo by hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), which are precursors of red blood cells. In this process, HSCs are grown together with stromal cells, creating an environment that mimics the conditions of bone marrow, the natural site of red-blood-cell growth. Erythropoietin, a growth factor, is added, coaxing the stem cells to complete terminal differentiation into red blood cells.[45] Further research into this technique should have potential benefits to gene therapy, blood transfusion, and topical medicine.
In 2004, scientists at King's College London discovered a way to cultivate a complete tooth in mice[46] and were able to grow bioengineered teeth stand-alone in the laboratory. Researchers are confident that the tooth regeneration technology can be used to grow live teeth in people.
In theory, stem cells taken from the patient could be coaxed in the lab turning into a tooth bud which, when implanted in the gums, will give rise to a new tooth, and would be expected to be grown in a time over three weeks.[47] It will fuse with the jawbone and release chemicals that encourage nerves and blood vessels to connect with it. The process is similar to what happens when humans grow their original adult teeth. Many challenges remain, however, before stem cells could be a choice for the replacement of missing teeth in the future.[48][49]
Heller has reported success in re-growing cochlea hair cells with the use of embryonic stem cells.[50]
In a 2019 review that looked at hearing regeneration and regenerative medicine, stem cell-derived otic progenitors have the potential to greatly improve hearing.[51]
Since 2003, researchers have successfully transplanted corneal stem cells into damaged eyes to restore vision. "Sheets of retinal cells used by the team are harvested from aborted fetuses, which some people find objectionable." When these sheets are transplanted over the damaged cornea, the stem cells stimulate renewed repair, eventually restore vision.[52] The latest such development was in June 2005, when researchers at the Queen Victoria Hospital of Sussex, England were able to restore the sight of forty people using the same technique. The group, led by Sheraz Daya, was able to successfully use adult stem cells obtained from the patient, a relative, or even a cadaver. Further rounds of trials are ongoing.[53]
People with Type 1 diabetes lose the function of insulin-producing beta cells within the pancreas.[54] In recent experiments, scientists have been able to coax embryonic stem cell to turn into beta cells in the lab. In theory if the beta cell is transplanted successfully, they will be able to replace malfunctioning ones in a diabetic patient.[55]
Use of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) derived from adult stem cells is under preliminary research for potential orthopedic applications in bone and muscle trauma, cartilage repair, osteoarthritis, intervertebral disc surgery, rotator cuff surgery, and musculoskeletal disorders, among others.[56] Other areas of orthopedic research for uses of MSCs include tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.[56]
Stem cells can also be used to stimulate the growth of human tissues. In an adult, wounded tissue is most often replaced by scar tissue, which is characterized in the skin by disorganized collagen structure, loss of hair follicles and irregular vascular structure. In the case of wounded fetal tissue, however, wounded tissue is replaced with normal tissue through the activity of stem cells.[57] A possible method for tissue regeneration in adults is to place adult stem cell "seeds" inside a tissue bed "soil" in a wound bed and allow the stem cells to stimulate differentiation in the tissue bed cells. This method elicits a regenerative response more similar to fetal wound-healing than adult scar tissue formation.[57] Researchers are still investigating different aspects of the "soil" tissue that are conducive to regeneration.[57] Because of the general healing capabilities of stem cells, they have gained interest for the treatment of cutaneous wounds, such as in skin cancer.[58]
Destruction of the immune system by the HIV is driven by the loss of CD4+ T cells in the peripheral blood and lymphoid tissues. Viral entry into CD4+ cells is mediated by the interaction with a cellular chemokine receptor, the most common of which are CCR5 and CXCR4. Because subsequent viral replication requires cellular gene expression processes, activated CD4+ cells are the primary targets of productive HIV infection.[59] Recently scientists have been investigating an alternative approach to treating HIV-1/AIDS, based on the creation of a disease-resistant immune system through transplantation of autologous, gene-modified (HIV-1-resistant) hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (GM-HSPC).[60]
Stem cells are thought to mediate repair via five primary mechanisms: 1) providing an anti-inflammatory effect, 2) homing to damaged tissues and recruiting other cells, such as endothelial progenitor cells, that are necessary for tissue growth, 3) supporting tissue remodeling over scar formation, 4) inhibiting apoptosis, and 5) differentiating into bone, cartilage, tendon, and ligament tissue.[61][62]
To further enrich blood supply to the damaged areas, and consequently promote tissue regeneration, platelet-rich plasma could be used in conjunction with stem cell transplantation.[63][64] The efficacy of some stem cell populations may also be affected by the method of delivery; for instance, to regenerate bone, stem cells are often introduced in a scaffold where they produce the minerals necessary for generation of functional bone.[63][64][65][66]
Stem cells have also been shown to have a low immunogenicity due to the relatively low number of MHC molecules found on their surface. In addition, they have been found to secrete chemokines that alter the immune response and promote tolerance of the new tissue. This allows for allogeneic treatments to be performed without a high rejection risk.[67]
The ability to grow up functional adult tissues indefinitely in culture through Directed differentiation creates new opportunities for drug research. Researchers are able to grow up differentiated cell lines and then test new drugs on each cell type to examine possible interactions in vitro before performing in vivo studies. This is critical in the development of drugs for use in veterinary research because of the possibilities of species-specific interactions. The hope is that having these cell lines available for research use will reduce the need for research animals used because effects on human tissue in vitro will provide insight not normally known before the animal testing phase.[68]
Stem cells are being explored for use in conservation efforts. Spermatogonial stem cells have been harvested from a rat and placed into a mouse host and fully mature sperm were produced with the ability to produce viable offspring. Currently research is underway to find suitable hosts for the introduction of donor spermatogonial stem cells. If this becomes a viable option for conservationists, sperm can be produced from high genetic quality individuals who die before reaching sexual maturity, preserving a line that would otherwise be lost.[69]
Most stem cells intended for regenerative therapy are generally isolated either from the patient's bone marrow or from adipose tissue.[64][66] Mesenchymal stem cells can differentiate into the cells that make up bone, cartilage, tendons, and ligaments, as well as muscle, neural and other progenitor tissues. They have been the main type of stem cells studied in the treatment of diseases affecting these tissues.[70][71] The number of stem cells transplanted into damaged tissue may alter the efficacy of treatment. Accordingly, stem cells derived from bone marrow aspirates, for instance, are cultured in specialized laboratories for expansion to millions of cells.[64][66] Although adipose-derived tissue also requires processing prior to use, the culturing methodology for adipose-derived stem cells is not as extensive as that for bone marrow-derived cells.[72] While it is thought that bone-marrow-derived stem cells are preferred for bone, cartilage, ligament, and tendon repair, others believe that the less challenging collection techniques and the multi-cellular microenvironment already present in adipose-derived stem cell fractions make the latter the preferred source for autologous transplantation.[63]
New sources of mesenchymal stem cells are being researched, including stem cells present in the skin and dermis which are of interest because of the ease at which they can be harvested with minimal risk to the animal.[73] Hematopoietic stem cells have also been discovered to be travelling in the blood stream and possess equal differentiating ability as other mesenchymal stem cells, again with a very non-invasive harvesting technique.[74]
There has been more recent interest in the use of extra embryonic mesenchymal stem cells. Research is underway to examine the differentiating capabilities of stem cells found in the umbilical cord, yolk sac and placenta of different animals. These stem cells are thought to have more differentiating ability than their adult counterparts, including the ability to more readily form tissues of endodermal and ectodermal origin.[67]
There is widespread controversy over the use of human embryonic stem cells. This controversy primarily targets the techniques used to derive new embryonic stem cell lines, which often requires the destruction of the blastocyst. Opposition to the use of human embryonic stem cells in research is often based on philosophical, moral, or religious objections.[75] There is other stem cell research that does not involve the destruction of a human embryo, and such research involves adult stem cells, amniotic stem cells, and induced pluripotent stem cells.
On 23 January 2009, the US Food and Drug Administration gave clearance to Geron Corporation for the initiation of the first clinical trial of an embryonic stem-cell-based therapy on humans. The trial aimed to evaluate the drug GRNOPC1, embryonic stem cell-derived oligodendrocyte progenitor cells, on people with acute spinal cord injury. The trial was discontinued in November 2011 so that the company could focus on therapies in the "current environment of capital scarcity and uncertain economic conditions".[76] In 2013 biotechnology and regenerative medicine company BioTime (AMEX:BTX) acquired Geron's stem cell assets in a stock transaction, with the aim of restarting the clinical trial.[77]
Scientists have reported that MSCs when transfused immediately within few hours post thawing may show reduced function or show decreased efficacy in treating diseases as compared to those MSCs which are in log phase of cell growth (fresh), so cryopreserved MSCs should be brought back into log phase of cell growth in invitro culture before administration. Re-culturing of MSCs will help in recovering from the shock the cells get during freezing and thawing. Various MSC clinical trials which used cryopreserved product immediately post thaw have failed as compared to those clinical trials which used fresh MSCs.[78]
Research has been conducted on horses, dogs, and cats can benefit the development of stem cell treatments in veterinary medicine and can target a wide range of injuries and diseases such as myocardial infarction, stroke, tendon and ligament damage, osteoarthritis, osteochondrosis and muscular dystrophy both in large animals, as well as humans.[79][80][81][82] While investigation of cell-based therapeutics generally reflects human medical needs, the high degree of frequency and severity of certain injuries in racehorses has put veterinary medicine at the forefront of this novel regenerative approach.[83] Companion animals can serve as clinically relevant models that closely mimic human disease.[84][85]
Veterinary applications of stem cell therapy as a means of tissue regeneration have been largely shaped by research that began with the use of adult-derived mesenchymal stem cells to treat animals with injuries or defects affecting bone, cartilage, ligaments and/or tendons.[86][70][87] There are two main categories of stem cells used for treatments: allogeneic stem cells derived from a genetically different donor within the same species[66][88] and autologous mesenchymal stem cells, derived from the patient prior to use in various treatments.[63] A third category, xenogenic stem cells, or stem cells derived from different species, are used primarily for research purposes, especially for human treatments.[68]
Bone has a unique and well documented natural healing process that normally is sufficient to repair fractures and other common injuries. Misaligned breaks due to severe trauma, as well as treatments like tumor resections of bone cancer, are prone to improper healing if left to the natural process alone. Scaffolds composed of natural and artificial components are seeded with mesenchymal stem cells and placed in the defect. Within four weeks of placing the scaffold, newly formed bone begins to integrate with the old bone and within 32 weeks, full union is achieved.[89] Further studies are necessary to fully characterize the use of cell-based therapeutics for treatment of bone fractures.
Stem cells have been used to treat degenerative bone diseases. The normally recommended treatment for dogs that have LeggCalvePerthes disease is to remove the head of the femur after the degeneration has progressed. Recently, mesenchymal stem cells have been injected directly in to the head of the femur, with success not only in bone regeneration, but also in pain reduction.[89]
Autologous stem cell-based treatments for ligament injury, tendon injury, osteoarthritis, osteochondrosis, and sub-chondral bone cysts have been commercially available to practicing veterinarians to treat horses since 2003 in the United States and since 2006 in the United Kingdom. Autologous stem cell based treatments for tendon injury, ligament injury, and osteoarthritis in dogs have been available to veterinarians in the United States since 2005. Over 3000 privately owned horses and dogs have been treated with autologous adipose-derived stem cells. The efficacy of these treatments has been shown in double-blind clinical trials for dogs with osteoarthritis of the hip and elbow and horses with tendon damage.[90][91]
Race horses are especially prone to injuries of the tendon and ligaments. Conventional therapies are very unsuccessful in returning the horse to full functioning potential. Natural healing, guided by the conventional treatments, leads to the formation of fibrous scar tissue that reduces flexibility and full joint movement. Traditional treatments prevented a large number of horses from returning to full activity and also have a high incidence of re-injury due to the stiff nature of the scarred tendon. Introduction of both bone marrow and adipose derived stem cells, along with natural mechanical stimulus promoted the regeneration of tendon tissue. The natural movement promoted the alignment of the new fibers and tendocytes with the natural alignment found in uninjured tendons. Stem cell treatment not only allowed more horses to return to full duty and also greatly reduced the re-injury rate over a three-year period.[67]
The use of embryonic stem cells has also been applied to tendon repair. The embryonic stem cells were shown to have a better survival rate in the tendon as well as better migrating capabilities to reach all areas of damaged tendon. The overall repair quality was also higher, with better tendon architecture and collagen formed. There was also no tumor formation seen during the three-month experimental period. Long-term studies need to be carried out to examine the long-term efficacy and risks associated with the use of embryonic stem cells.[67] Similar results have been found in small animals.[67]
Osteoarthritis is the main cause of joint pain both in animals and humans. Horses and dogs are most frequently affected by arthritis. Natural cartilage regeneration is very limited. Different types of mesenchymal stem cells and other additives are still being researched to find the best type of cell and method for long-term treatment.[67]
Adipose-derived mesenchymal cells are currently the most often used for stem cell treatment of osteoarthritis because of the non-invasive harvesting. This is a recently developed, non-invasive technique developed for easier clinical use. Dogs receiving this treatment showed greater flexibility in their joints and less pain.[92]
Stem cells have successfully been used to ameliorate healing in the heart after myocardial infarction in dogs. Adipose and bone marrow derived stem cells were removed and induced to a cardiac cell fate before being injected into the heart. The heart was found to have improved contractility and a reduction in the damaged area four weeks after the stem cells were applied.[93]
A different trial is underway for a patch made of a porous substance onto which the stem cells are "seeded" in order to induce tissue regeneration in heart defects. Tissue was regenerated and the patch was well incorporated into the heart tissue. This is thought to be due, in part, to improved angiogenesis and reduction of inflammation. Although cardiomyocytes were produced from the mesenchymal stem cells, they did not appear to be contractile. Other treatments that induced a cardiac fate in the cells before transplanting had greater success at creating contractile heart tissue.[94]
Recent research, such as the European nTRACK research project, aims to demonstrate that multimodal nanoparticles can structurally and functionally track stem cell in muscle regeneration therapy. The idea is to label stem cells with gold nano-particles that are fully characterised for uptake, functionality, and safety. The labelled stem cells will be injected into an injured muscle and tracked using imaging systems.[95] However, the system still needs to be demonstrated at lab scale.
Spinal cord injuries are one of the most common traumas brought into veterinary hospitals.[89] Spinal injuries occur in two ways after the trauma: the primary mechanical damage, and in secondary processes, like inflammation and scar formation, in the days following the trauma. These cells involved in the secondary damage response secrete factors that promote scar formation and inhibit cellular regeneration. Mesenchymal stem cells that are induced to a neural cell fate are loaded onto a porous scaffold and are then implanted at the site of injury. The cells and scaffold secrete factors that counteract those secreted by scar forming cells and promote neural regeneration. Eight weeks later, dogs treated with stem cells showed immense improvement over those treated with conventional therapies. Dogs treated with stem cells were able to occasionally support their own weight, which has not been seen in dogs undergoing conventional therapies.[96][97][98]
In a study to evaluate the treatment of experimentally induced MS in dogs using laser activated non-expanded adipose derived stem cells. The results showed amelioration of the clinical signs over time confirmed by the resolution of the previous lesions on MRI. Positive migration of the injected cells to the site of lesion, increased remyelination detected by Myelin Basic Proteins, positive differentiation into Olig2 positive oligodendrocytes, prevented the glial scar formation and restored axonal architecture.[20]
Treatments are also in clinical trials to repair and regenerate peripheral nerves. Peripheral nerves are more likely to be damaged, but the effects of the damage are not as widespread as seen in injuries to the spinal cord. Treatments are currently in clinical trials to repair severed nerves, with early success. Stem cells induced to a neural fate injected in to a severed nerve. Within four weeks, regeneration of previously damaged stem cells and completely formed nerve bundles were observed.[73]
Stem cells are also in clinical phases for treatment in ophthalmology. Hematopoietic stem cells have been used to treat corneal ulcers of different origin of several horses. These ulcers were resistant to conventional treatments available, but quickly responded positively to the stem cell treatment. Stem cells were also able to restore sight in one eye of a horse with retinal detachment, allowing the horse to return to daily activities.[74]
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, there was an initial wave of companies and clinics offering stem cell therapy, while not substantiating health claims or having regulatory approval.[99] By 2012, a second wave of companies and clinics had emerged, usually located in developing countries where medicine is less regulated and offering stem cell therapies on a medical tourism model.[100][101] Like the first wave companies and clinics, they made similar strong, but unsubstantiated, claims, mainly by clinics in the United States, Mexico, Thailand, India, and South Africa.[100][101] By 2016, research indicated that there were more than 550 stem cell clinics in the US alone selling generally unproven therapies for a wide array of medical conditions in almost every state in the country,[102] altering the dynamic of stem cell tourism. In 2018, the FDA sent a warning letter to StemGenex Biologic Laboratories in San Diego, which marketed a service in which it took body fat from people, processed it into mixtures it said contained various forms of stem cells, and administered it back to the person by inhalation, intravenously, or infusion into their spinal cords; the company said the treatment was useful for many chronic and life-threatening conditions.[103]
Costs of stem cell therapies range widely by clinic, condition, and cell type, but most commonly range between $10,000-$20,000.[104] Insurance does not cover stem cell injections at clinics so patients often use on-line fundraising.[105] In 2018, the US Federal Trade Commission found health centers and an individual physician making unsubstantiated claims for stem cell therapies, and forced refunds of some $500,000.[106] The FDA filed suit against two stem cell clinic firms around the same time, seeking permanent injunctions against their marketing and use of unapproved adipose stem cell products.[107]
Although according to the NIH no stem cell treatments have been approved for COVID-19 and the agency recommends against the use of MSCs for the disease,[108] some stem cell clinics began marketing both unproven and non-FDA-approved stem cells and exosomes for COVID-19 in 2020.[109] The FDA took prompt action by sending letters to the firms in question.[110][111] The FTC also warned a stem cell firm for COVID-19-related marketing.[112][113]
View original post here:
Stem Cell Transplantation: What it Is, Process & Procedure
OverviewWhat is a stem cell transplant?
Healthcare providers use stem cell transplants to treat people who have life-threatening cancer or blood diseases caused by abnormal blood cells. A stem cell transplant helps your body replace those blood cells with healthy or normal blood cells. If you receive a stem cell transplant, your provider may use your own healthy stem cells or donor stem cells.
Your blood cells come from stem cells in your bone marrow. Your bone marrow constantly creates new stem cells that become blood cells. Stem cell transplants can involve stem cells taken from bone marrow or from blood. Providers sometimes refer to stem cell and bone marrow transplants as haematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT). This article focuses on stem cells taken from blood.
Healthcare providers use stem cells to replace unhealthy blood cells that cause conditions such as several types of leukemia, lymphoma and testicular cancer. They also use transplanted stem cells to treat several types of anemia. Some people who have multiple sclerosis may benefit by receiving healthy stem cells. Researchers are investigating ways to treat other autoimmune diseases with stem cell transplants.
Healthcare providers typically use stem cell transplants to treat life-threatening cancer or blood diseases. Unfortunately, not everyone who has those conditions can have the procedure. Here are factors providers take into consideration:
Recently data reported nearly 23,000 people had stem cell transplants in 2018.
To understand how stem cell transplants work, it may help to know more about stem cells and their role in your body:
Healthcare providers obtain stem cells from several sources:
If youre a candidate for a stem cell transplant, your healthcare provider will perform the following tests to confirm youre physically able to manage transplantation processes, including pre-treatment chemotherapy called conditioning and transplantation side effects:
Before your blood tests, your provider may place a central venous catheter (CVC) in one of the large veins in your upper chest. CVCs are tubes that serve as central lines that providers use to take blood and provide medication and fluids. CVCs eliminate repeated needle sticks to draw blood or insert intravenous tubes throughout the transplantation process.
Transplant conditioning is intensive chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy that kills cancer cells in your bone marrow. Conditioning also kills existing blood cells.
If youre receiving your own stem cells, your provider may give you medication to boost your stem cell production. Theyll do follow-up blood tests to check on stem cell production.
If youre receiving your own stem cells, your providers will take blood so they can remove healthy stem cells for transplant. . To do that, they connect veins in both of your arms to a cell separator machine. The machine pulls your blood from one arm, filters the blood and then returns it to through your other arm. This process doesnt hurt. Providers may need to take blood more than once to ensure they have enough stem cells to transplant. The actual transplantation involves receiving your stem cells via your CVC.
Just like someone receiving their own cells, youll receive healthy stem cells via your CVC.
Your new stem cells will need time to produce new blood cells. If you received donor stem cells, your transplanted stem cells will replace unhealthy stem cells and begin to build a new immune system. This process is engraftment.
Either way, you may need to stay in or close to the hospital for several months so your healthcare providers can support your recovery and monitor your progress. Heres what you can expect after your stem cell transplant:
Successful stem cell transplants may help people when previous treatments dont slow or eliminate certain cancers.
The greatest risk is that youll go through the procedure and your transplanted stem cells cant slow or eliminate your illness.
Allogeneic and autologous stem cell transplants have different complications. Allogeneic stem cell transplants can result in graft versus host disease. This happens when your immune system attacks new stem cells. Potential complications will vary based on your overall health, age and previous treatment. If youre considering a stem cell transplant, your healthcare provider will outline potential complications so you can weigh those risks against potential benefits.
It can take several weeks to several months to recover from a stem cell transplant. Your healthcare provider may recommend you stay in or near the hospital or transplant center for the first 100 days after your procedure.
Its difficult to calculate an overall success rate. That said, the most recent data show the highest number of stem cell transplants involved people with multiple myeloma or Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma who received autologous stem cell transplants. Here is information on three-year survival rates:
A successful stem cell transplant can change your life, curing your condition or slowing its growth. But its not an overnight transformation. It can take a year or more for you to recover. Here are some challenges and ways to overcome them:
You may have days when you feel exhausted and days when you feel fine. A hard day doesnt mean youre not doing well. It means you need to give yourself a break and take it easy.
Youll have regular follow-up appointments with your provider. But its important to remember your immune system likely will be weak for a year or so after your transplantation. Contact your provider right away if you develop any of the following symptoms:
A note from Cleveland Clinic
If youve been coping with cancer or a blood disease, a stem cell transplant can be a new lease on life. It can mean hope for a cure or remission when other treatments havent worked. But stem cell transplants come with demanding physical challenges and significant risks. Not everyone who has cancer or blood conditions is a candidate for a stem cell transplant. Unfortunately, not everyone who is a candidate but needs donor stem cells finds a donor. If youre considering a stem cell transplant, talk to your healthcare provider about potential risks and benefits. Theyll evaluate your situation, your options and potential outcomes.
Original post:
Stem Cell Therapy for Arthritis | Arthritis-health
Experts are researching ways to use stem cells to treat arthritis in the knee and other joints. Many doctors already use stem cell therapy to treat arthritis, but it is not considered standard practice.
There is a lot of debate around stem cell treatment, and it is helpful for potential patients to understand what stem cells are and the issues surrounding their use in arthritis therapy.
Stem cells are located throughout the body. What makes stem cells special is that they can:
See What Are Stem Cells?
Advocates of stem cell treatments hypothesize that, when placed into a certain environment, stem cells can transform to accommodate a certain need. For example, stem cells that are placed near damaged cartilage are hypothesized to develop into cartilage tissue.
See What Is Cartilage?
Stem cells can be applied during a surgery (such as the surgical repair of a torn knee meniscus) or delivered through injections directly into the arthritis joint.
Watch: Knee Meniscus Tear Video
When administering stem cell injections, many physicians use medical imaging, such as ultrasound, in order to deliver cells precisely to the site of cartilage damage.
The most common type of stem cells used for treating arthritis are mesenchymal stem cells. Mesenchymal stem cells are usually collected from the patients fat tissue, blood, or bone marrow.
The process of collecting cells is often called harvesting.
Bone marrow is usually taken from the pelvic bone using a needle and syringe, a process called bone marrow aspiration. The patient is given a local anesthetic and may also be given a sedative before the procedure.
There are no professional medical guidelines for who can and cannot receive stem cell therapy for arthritis. For now, the decision about who gets stem cell therapy is up to patients and doctors.
See Arthritis Treatment Specialists
There is some evidence that people with severe arthritis can benefit from stem cell therapy. Pers YM, Rackwitz L, Ferreira R, et al. Adipose Mesenchymal Stromal Cell-Based Therapy for Severe Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Phase I Dose-Escalation Trial. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2016;5(7):847-56. Most research indicates that younger patients who have relatively mild osteoarthritis or cartilage damage see the most benefit. Filardo G, Perdisa F, Roffi A, Marcacci M, Kon E. Stem cells in articular cartilage regeneration. J Orthop Surg Res. 2016;11:42.
See What Is Osteoarthritis?
Some doctors have certain criteria for recommending stem cell therapy. For example, they only recommend it to patients who are healthy and have relatively little cartilage damage. Other doctors make recommendations on a case-by-case basis.
Stem cell therapy is a promising but still unproven treatment, and will not be covered by most insurance companies.
Visit link:
FDA Warns About Stem Cell Therapies | FDA – U.S. Food and Drug …
Espaol
Researchers hope stem cells will one day be effective in the treatment of many medical conditions and diseases. But unproven stem cell treatments can be unsafeso get all of the facts if youre considering any treatment.
Stem cells have been called everything from cure-alls to miracle treatments. But dont believe the hype. Some unscrupulous providers offer stem cell products that are both unapproved and unproven. So beware of potentially dangerous proceduresand confirm whats really being offered before you consider any treatment.
The facts: Stem cell therapies may offer the potential to treat diseases or conditions for which few treatments exist. Sometimes called the bodys master cells, stem cells are the cells that develop into blood, brain, bones, and all of the bodys organs. They have the potential to repair, restore, replace, and regenerate cells, and could possibly be used to treat many medical conditions and diseases.
But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is concerned that some patients seeking cures and remedies are vulnerable to stem cell treatments that are illegal and potentially harmful. And the FDA is increasing its oversight and enforcement to protect people from dishonest and unscrupulous stem cell clinics, while continuing to encourage innovation so that the medical industry can properly harness the potential of stem cell products.
To do your part to stay safe, make sure that any stem cell treatment you are considering is either:
And see the boxed section below for more advice.
The FDA has the authority to regulate stem cell products in the United States.
Today, doctors routinely use stem cells that come from bone marrow or blood in transplant procedures to treat patients with cancer and disorders of the blood and immune system.
With limited exceptions, investigational products must also go through a thorough FDA review process as investigators prepare to determine the safety and effectiveness of products in well-controlled human studies, called clinical trials. The FDA has reviewed many stem cell products for use in these studies.
As part of the FDAs review, investigators must show how each product will be manufactured so the FDA can make sure appropriate steps are being taken to help assure the products safety, purity, and strength (potency). The FDA also requires sufficient data from animal studies to help evaluate any potential risks associated with product use. (You can learn more about clinical trials on the FDAs website.)
That said, some clinics may inappropriately advertise stem cell clinical trials without submitting an IND. Some clinics also may falsely advertise that FDA review and approval of the stem cell therapy is unnecessary. But when clinical trials are not conducted under an IND, it means that the FDA has not reviewed the experimental therapy to help make sure it is reasonably safe. So be cautious about these treatments.
About FDA-approved Products Derived from Stem Cells
The only stem cell-based products that are FDA-approved for use in the United States consist of blood-forming stem cells (hematopoietic progenitor cells) derived from cord blood.
These products are approved for limited use in patients with disorders that affect the body system that is involved in the production of blood (called the hematopoietic system). These FDA-approved stem cell products are listed on the FDA website. Bone marrow also is used for these treatments but is generally not regulated by the FDA for this use.
All medical treatments have benefits and risks. But unproven stem cell therapies can be particularly unsafe.
For instance, attendees at a 2016 FDA public workshop discussed several cases of severe adverse events. One patient became blind due to an injection of stem cells into the eye. Another patient received a spinal cord injection that caused the growth of a spinal tumor.
Other potential safety concerns for unproven treatments include:
Note: Even if stem cells are your own cells, there are still safety risks such as those noted above. In addition, if cells are manipulated after removal, there is a risk of contamination of the cells.
When stem cell products are used in unapproved waysor when they are processed in ways that are more than minimally manipulated, which relates to the nature and degree of processingthe FDA may take (and has already taken) a variety of administrative and judicial actions, including criminal enforcement, depending on the violations involved.
In August 2017, the FDA announced increased enforcement of regulations and oversight of stem cell clinics. To learn more, see the statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on the FDA website.
And in March 2017, to further clarify the benefits and risks of stem cell therapy, the FDA published a perspective article in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The FDA will continue to help with the development and licensing of new stem cell therapies where the scientific evidence supports the products safety and effectiveness.
Know that the FDA plays a role in stem cell treatment oversight. You may be told that because these are your cells, the FDA does not need to review or approve the treatment. That is not true.
Stem cell products have the potential to treat many medical conditions and diseases. But for almost all of these products, it is not yet known whether the product has any benefitor if the product is safe to use.
If you're considering treatment in the United States:
If you're considering treatment in another country:
Follow this link:
FDA Warns About Stem Cell Therapies | FDA - U.S. Food and Drug ...
Induced pluripotent stem cell – Wikipedia
Pluripotent stem cell generated directly from a somatic cell
Induced pluripotent stem cells (also known as iPS cells or iPSCs) are a type of pluripotent stem cell that can be generated directly from a somatic cell. The iPSC technology was pioneered by Shinya Yamanaka's lab in Kyoto, Japan, who showed in 2006 that the introduction of four specific genes (named Myc, Oct3/4, Sox2 and Klf4), collectively known as Yamanaka factors, encoding transcription factors could convert somatic cells into pluripotent stem cells.[1] He was awarded the 2012 Nobel Prize along with Sir John Gurdon "for the discovery that mature cells can be reprogrammed to become pluripotent."[2]
Pluripotent stem cells hold promise in the field of regenerative medicine.[3] Because they can propagate indefinitely, as well as give rise to every other cell type in the body (such as neurons, heart, pancreatic, and liver cells), they represent a single source of cells that could be used to replace those lost to damage or disease.
The most well-known type of pluripotent stem cell is the embryonic stem cell. However, since the generation of embryonic stem cells involves destruction (or at least manipulation)[4] of the pre-implantation stage embryo, there has been much controversy surrounding their use. Patient-matched embryonic stem cell lines can now be derived using somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT).
Since iPSCs can be derived directly from adult tissues, they not only bypass the need for embryos, but can be made in a patient-matched manner, which means that each individual could have their own pluripotent stem cell line. These unlimited supplies of autologous cells could be used to generate transplants without the risk of immune rejection. While the iPSC technology has not yet advanced to a stage where therapeutic transplants have been deemed safe, iPSCs are readily being used in personalized drug discovery efforts and understanding the patient-specific basis of disease.[5]
Yamanaka named iPSCs with a lower case "i" due to the popularity of the iPod and other products.[7][8][9][10][dubious discuss]
In his Nobel seminar, Yamanaka cited the earlier seminal work of Harold Weintraub on the role of myoblast determination protein 1 (MyoD) in reprogramming cell fate to a muscle lineage as an important precursor to the discovery of iPSCs.[11]
iPSCs are typically derived by introducing products of specific sets of pluripotency-associated genes, or "reprogramming factors", into a given cell type. The original set of reprogramming factors (also dubbed Yamanaka factors) are the transcription factors Oct4 (Pou5f1), Sox2, Klf4 and cMyc. While this combination is most conventional in producing iPSCs, each of the factors can be functionally replaced by related transcription factors, miRNAs, small molecules, or even non-related genes such as lineage specifiers.[12]It is also clear that pro-mitotic factors such as C-MYC/L-MYC or repression of cell cycle checkpoints, such as p53, are conduits to creating a compliant cellular state for iPSC reprograming .[13]
iPSC derivation is typically a slow and inefficient process, taking 12 weeks for mouse cells and 34 weeks for human cells, with efficiencies around 0.010.1%. However, considerable advances have been made in improving the efficiency and the time it takes to obtain iPSCs. Upon introduction of reprogramming factors, cells begin to form colonies that resemble pluripotent stem cells, which can be isolated based on their morphology, conditions that select for their growth, or through expression of surface markers or reporter genes.
Induced pluripotent stem cells were first generated by Shinya Yamanaka's team at Kyoto University, Japan, in 2006.[1] They hypothesized that genes important to embryonic stem cell (ESC) function might be able to induce an embryonic state in adult cells. They chose twenty-four genes previously identified as important in ESCs and used retroviruses to deliver these genes to mouse fibroblasts. The fibroblasts were engineered so that any cells reactivating the ESC-specific gene, Fbx15, could be isolated using antibiotic selection.
Upon delivery of all twenty-four factors, ESC-like colonies emerged that reactivated the Fbx15 reporter and could propagate indefinitely. To identify the genes necessary for reprogramming, the researchers removed one factor at a time from the pool of twenty-four. By this process, they identified four factors, Oct4, Sox2, cMyc, and Klf4, which were each necessary and together sufficient to generate ESC-like colonies under selection for reactivation of Fbx15.
In June 2007, three separate research groups, including that of Yamanaka's, a Harvard/University of California, Los Angeles collaboration, and a group at MIT, published studies that substantially improved on the reprogramming approach, giving rise to iPSCs that were indistinguishable from ESCs. Unlike the first generation of iPSCs, these second generation iPSCs produced viable chimeric mice and contributed to the mouse germline, thereby achieving the 'gold standard' for pluripotent stem cells.
These second-generation iPSCs were derived from mouse fibroblasts by retroviral-mediated expression of the same four transcription factors (Oct4, Sox2, cMyc, Klf4). However, instead of using Fbx15 to select for pluripotent cells, the researchers used Nanog, a gene that is functionally important in ESCs. By using this different strategy, the researchers created iPSCs that were functionally identical to ESCs.[14][15][16][17]
Reprogramming of human cells to iPSCs was reported in November 2007 by two independent research groups: Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University, Japan, who pioneered the original iPSC method, and James Thomson of University of Wisconsin-Madison who was the first to derive human embryonic stem cells. With the same principle used in mouse reprogramming, Yamanaka's group successfully transformed human fibroblasts into iPSCs with the same four pivotal genes, Oct4, Sox2, Klf4, and cMyc, using a retroviral system,[18] while Thomson and colleagues used a different set of factors, Oct4, Sox2, Nanog, and Lin28, using a lentiviral system.[19]
Obtaining fibroblasts to produce iPSCs involves a skin biopsy, and there has been a push towards identifying cell types that are more easily accessible.[20][21] In 2008, iPSCs were derived from human keratinocytes, which could be obtained from a single hair pluck.[22][23] In 2010, iPSCs were derived from peripheral blood cells,[24][25] and in 2012, iPSCs were made from renal epithelial cells in the urine.[26]
Other considerations for starting cell type include mutational load (for example, skin cells may harbor more mutations due to UV exposure),[20][21] time it takes to expand the population of starting cells,[20] and the ability to differentiate into a given cell type.[27]
[citation needed]
The generation of induced pluripotent cells is crucially dependent on the transcription factors used for the induction.
Oct-3/4 and certain products of the Sox gene family (Sox1, Sox2, Sox3, and Sox15) have been identified as crucial transcriptional regulators involved in the induction process whose absence makes induction impossible. Additional genes, however, including certain members of the Klf family (Klf1, Klf2, Klf4, and Klf5), the Myc family (c-myc, L-myc, and N-myc), Nanog, and LIN28, have been identified to increase the induction efficiency.
Although the methods pioneered by Yamanaka and others have demonstrated that adult cells can be reprogrammed to iPS cells, there are still challenges associated with this technology:
The table on the right summarizes the key strategies and techniques used to develop iPS cells in the first five years after Yamanaka et al.'s 2006 breakthrough. Rows of similar colors represent studies that used similar strategies for reprogramming.
One of the main strategies for avoiding problems (1) and (2) has been to use small molecules that can mimic the effects of transcription factors. These compounds can compensate for a reprogramming factor that does not effectively target the genome or fails at reprogramming for another reason; thus they raise reprogramming efficiency. They also avoid the problem of genomic integration, which in some cases contributes to tumor genesis. Key studies using such strategy were conducted in 2008. Melton et al. studied the effects of histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor valproic acid. They found that it increased reprogramming efficiency 100-fold (compared to Yamanaka's traditional transcription factor method).[42] The researchers proposed that this compound was mimicking the signaling that is usually caused by the transcription factor c-Myc. A similar type of compensation mechanism was proposed to mimic the effects of Sox2. In 2008, Ding et al. used the inhibition of histone methyl transferase (HMT) with BIX-01294 in combination with the activation of calcium channels in the plasma membrane in order to increase reprogramming efficiency.[43] Deng et al. of Beijing University reported in July 2013 that induced pluripotent stem cells can be created without any genetic modification. They used a cocktail of seven small-molecule compounds including DZNep to induce the mouse somatic cells into stem cells which they called CiPS cells with the efficiency at 0.2% comparable to those using standard iPSC production techniques. The CiPS cells were introduced into developing mouse embryos and were found to contribute to all major cells types, proving its pluripotency.[44][45]
Ding et al. demonstrated an alternative to transcription factor reprogramming through the use of drug-like chemicals. By studying the MET (mesenchymal-epithelial transition) process in which fibroblasts are pushed to a stem-cell like state, Ding's group identified two chemicals ALK5 inhibitor SB431412 and MEK (mitogen-activated protein kinase) inhibitor PD0325901 which was found to increase the efficiency of the classical genetic method by 100 fold. Adding a third compound known to be involved in the cell survival pathway, Thiazovivin further increases the efficiency by 200 fold. Using the combination of these three compounds also decreased the reprogramming process of the human fibroblasts from four weeks to two weeks.[46][47]
In April 2009, it was demonstrated that generation of iPS cells is possible without any genetic alteration of the adult cell: a repeated treatment of the cells with certain proteins channeled into the cells via poly-arginine anchors was sufficient to induce pluripotency.[48] The acronym given for those iPSCs is piPSCs (protein-induced pluripotent stem cells).
Another key strategy for avoiding problems such as tumorgenesis and low throughput has been to use alternate forms of vectors: adenovirus, plasmids, and naked DNA or protein compounds.
In 2008, Hochedlinger et al. used an adenovirus to transport the requisite four transcription factors into the DNA of skin and liver cells of mice, resulting in cells identical to ESCs. The adenovirus is unique from other vectors like viruses and retroviruses because it does not incorporate any of its own genes into the targeted host and avoids the potential for insertional mutagenesis.[43] In 2009, Freed et al. demonstrated successful reprogramming of human fibroblasts to iPS cells.[49] Another advantage of using adenoviruses is that they only need to present for a brief amount of time in order for effective reprogramming to take place.
Also in 2008, Yamanaka et al. found that they could transfer the four necessary genes with a plasmid.[35] The Yamanaka group successfully reprogrammed mouse cells by transfection with two plasmid constructs carrying the reprogramming factors; the first plasmid expressed c-Myc, while the second expressed the other three factors (Oct4, Klf4, and Sox2). Although the plasmid methods avoid viruses, they still require cancer-promoting genes to accomplish reprogramming. The other main issue with these methods is that they tend to be much less efficient compared to retroviral methods. Furthermore, transfected plasmids have been shown to integrate into the host genome and therefore they still pose the risk of insertional mutagenesis. Because non-retroviral approaches have demonstrated such low efficiency levels, researchers have attempted to effectively rescue the technique with what is known as the PiggyBac Transposon System. Several studies have demonstrated that this system can effectively deliver the key reprogramming factors without leaving footprint mutations in the host cell genome. The PiggyBac Transposon System involves the re-excision of exogenous genes, which eliminates the issue of insertional mutagenesis.[citation needed]
In January 2014, two articles were published claiming that a type of pluripotent stem cell can be generated by subjecting the cells to certain types of stress (bacterial toxin, a low pH of 5.7, or physical squeezing); the resulting cells were called STAP cells, for stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency.[50]
In light of difficulties that other labs had replicating the results of the surprising study, in March 2014, one of the co-authors has called for the articles to be retracted.[51] On 4 June 2014, the lead author, Obokata agreed to retract both the papers [52] after she was found to have committed 'research misconduct' as concluded in an investigation by RIKEN on 1 April 2014.[53]
MicroRNAs are short RNA molecules that bind to complementary sequences on messenger RNA and block expression of a gene. Measuring variations in microRNA expression in iPS cells can be used to predict their differentiation potential.[54] Addition of microRNAs can also be used to enhance iPS potential. Several mechanisms have been proposed.[54] ES cell-specific microRNA molecules (such as miR-291, miR-294 and miR-295) enhance the efficiency of induced pluripotency by acting downstream of c-Myc.[55] microRNAs can also block expression of repressors of Yamanaka's four transcription factors, and there may be additional mechanisms induce reprogramming even in the absence of added exogenous transcription factors.[54]
Induced pluripotent stem cells are similar to natural pluripotent stem cells, such as embryonic stem cells, in many aspects, such as the expression of certain stem cell genes and proteins, chromatin methylation patterns, doubling time, embryoid body formation, teratoma formation, viable chimera formation, and potency and differentiability, but the full extent of their relation to natural pluripotent stem cells is still being assessed.[1]
Gene expression and genome-wide H3K4me3 and H3K27me3 were found to be extremely similar between ES and iPS cells.[56][citation needed] The generated iPSCs were remarkably similar to naturally isolated pluripotent stem cells (such as mouse and human embryonic stem cells, mESCs and hESCs, respectively) in the following respects, thus confirming the identity, authenticity, and pluripotency of iPSCs to naturally isolated pluripotent stem cells:
Recent achievements and future tasks for safe iPSC-based cell therapy are collected in the review of Okano et al.[67]
The task of producing iPS cells continues to be challenging due to the six problems mentioned above. A key tradeoff to overcome is that between efficiency and genomic integration. Most methods that do not rely on the integration of transgenes are inefficient, while those that do rely on the integration of transgenes face the problems of incomplete reprogramming and tumor genesis, although a vast number of techniques and methods have been attempted. Another large set of strategies is to perform a proteomic characterization of iPS cells.[58] Further studies and new strategies should generate optimal solutions to the five main challenges. One approach might attempt to combine the positive attributes of these strategies into an ultimately effective technique for reprogramming cells to iPS cells.
Another approach is the use of iPS cells derived from patients to identify therapeutic drugs able to rescue a phenotype. For instance, iPS cell lines derived from patients affected by ectodermal dysplasia syndrome (EEC), in which the p63 gene is mutated, display abnormal epithelial commitment that could be partially rescued by a small compound.[68]
An attractive feature of human iPS cells is the ability to derive them from adult patients to study the cellular basis of human disease. Since iPS cells are self-renewing and pluripotent, they represent a theoretically unlimited source of patient-derived cells which can be turned into any type of cell in the body. This is particularly important because many other types of human cells derived from patients tend to stop growing after a few passages in laboratory culture. iPS cells have been generated for a wide variety of human genetic diseases, including common disorders such as Down syndrome and polycystic kidney disease.[69][70] In many instances, the patient-derived iPS cells exhibit cellular defects not observed in iPS cells from healthy subjects, providing insight into the pathophysiology of the disease.[71] An international collaborated project, StemBANCC, was formed in 2012 to build a collection of iPS cell lines for drug screening for a variety of disease. Managed by the University of Oxford, the effort pooled funds and resources from 10 pharmaceutical companies and 23 universities. The goal is to generate a library of 1,500 iPS cell lines which will be used in early drug testing by providing a simulated human disease environment.[72] Furthermore, combining hiPSC technology and small molecule or genetically encoded voltage and calcium indicators provided a large-scale and high-throughput platform for cardiovascular drug safety screening.[73][74][75][76]
A proof-of-concept of using induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) to generate human organ for transplantation was reported by researchers from Japan. Human 'liver buds' (iPSC-LBs) were grown from a mixture of three different kinds of stem cells: hepatocytes (for liver function) coaxed from iPSCs; endothelial stem cells (to form lining of blood vessels) from umbilical cord blood; and mesenchymal stem cells (to form connective tissue). This new approach allows different cell types to self-organize into a complex organ, mimicking the process in fetal development. After growing in vitro for a few days, the liver buds were transplanted into mice where the 'liver' quickly connected with the host blood vessels and continued to grow. Most importantly, it performed regular liver functions including metabolizing drugs and producing liver-specific proteins. Further studies will monitor the longevity of the transplanted organ in the host body (ability to integrate or avoid rejection) and whether it will transform into tumors.[77][78] Using this method, cells from one mouse could be used to test 1,000 drug compounds to treat liver disease, and reduce animal use by up to 50,000.[79]
In 2021, a switchable Yamanaka factors-reprogramming-based approach for regeneration of damaged heart without tumor-formation was demonstrated in mice and was successful if the intervention was carried out immediately before or after a heart attack.[80]
Embryonic cord-blood cells were induced into pluripotent stem cells using plasmid DNA. Using cell surface endothelial/pericytic markers CD31 and CD146, researchers identified 'vascular progenitor', the high-quality, multipotent vascular stem cells. After the iPS cells were injected directly into the vitreous of the damaged retina of mice, the stem cells engrafted into the retina, grew and repaired the vascular vessels.[81][82]
Labelled iPSCs-derived NSCs injected into laboratory animals with brain lesions were shown to migrate to the lesions and some motor function improvement was observed.[83]
Beating cardiac muscle cells, iPSC-derived cardiomyocytes, can be mass-produced using chemically defined differentiation protocols.[84][85] These protocols typically modulate the same developmental signaling pathways required for heart development .[86] These iPSC-cardiomyocytes can recapitulate genetic arrhythmias and cardiac drug responses, since they exhibit the same genetic background as the patient from which they were derived.[87][88][89]
In June 2014, Takara Bio received technology transfer from iHeart Japan, a venture company from Kyoto University's iPS Cell Research Institute, to make it possible to exclusively use technologies and patents that induce differentiation of iPS cells into cardiomyocytes in Asia. The company announced the idea of selling cardiomyocytes to pharmaceutical companies and universities to help develop new drugs for heart disease.[90]
On March 9, 2018, the Specified Regenerative Medicine Committee of Osaka University officially approved the world's first clinical research plan to transplant a "myocardial sheet" made from iPS cells into the heart of patients with severe heart failure. Osaka University announced that it had filed an application with the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare on the same day.
On May 16, 2018, the clinical research plan was approved by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare's expert group with a condition.[91][92]
In October 2019, a group at Okayama University developed a model of ischemic heart disease using cardiomyocytes differentiated from iPS cells.[93]
Although a pint of donated blood contains about two trillion red blood cells and over 107 million blood donations are collected globally, there is still a critical need for blood for transfusion. In 2014, type O red blood cells were synthesized at the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service from iPSC. The cells were induced to become a mesoderm and then blood cells and then red blood cells. The final step was to make them eject their nuclei and mature properly. Type O can be transfused into all patients. Human clinical trials were not expected to begin before 2016.[94]
The first human clinical trial using autologous iPSCs was approved by the Japan Ministry Health and was to be conducted in 2014 at the Riken Center for Developmental Biology in Kobe. However the trial was suspended after Japan's new regenerative medicine laws came into effect in November 2015.[95] More specifically, an existing set of guidelines was strengthened to have the force of law (previously mere recommendations).[96] iPSCs derived from skin cells from six patients with wet age-related macular degeneration were reprogrammed to differentiate into retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) cells. The cell sheet would be transplanted into the affected retina where the degenerated RPE tissue was excised. Safety and vision restoration monitoring were to last one to three years.[97][98]
In March 2017, a team led by Masayo Takahashi completed the first successful transplant of iPS-derived retinal cells from a donor into the eye of a person with advanced macular degeneration.[99] However it was reported that they are now having complications.[100] The benefits of using autologous iPSCs are that there is theoretically no risk of rejection and that it eliminates the need to use embryonic stem cells. However, these iPSCs were derived from another person.[98]
New clinical trials involving iPSCs are now ongoing not only in Japan, but also in the US and Europe.[101] Research in 2021 on the trial registry Clinicaltrials.gov identified 129 trial listings mentioning iPSCs, but most were non-interventional.[102]
To make iPSC-based regenerative medicine technologies available to more patients, it is necessary to create universal iPSCs that can be transplanted independently of haplotypes of HLA. The current strategy for the creation of universal iPSCs has two main goals: to remove HLA expression and to prevent NK cells attacks due to deletion of HLA. Deletion of the B2M and CIITA genes using the CRISPR/Cas9 system has been reported to suppress the expression of HLA class I and class II, respectively. To avoid NK cell attacks. transduction of ligands inhibiting NK-cells, such as HLA-E and CD47 has been used.[103] HLA-C is left unchanged, since the 12 common HLA-C alleles are enough to cover 95% of the world's population.[103]
A multipotent mesenchymal stem cell, when induced into pluripotence, holds great promise to slow or reverse aging phenotypes. Such anti-aging properties were demonstrated in early clinical trials in 2017.[104] In 2020, Stanford University researchers concluded after studying elderly mice that old human cells when subjected to the Yamanaka factors, might rejuvenate and become nearly indistinguishable from their younger counterparts.[105]
Link:
Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
1967 amendment enumerating presidential succession
The Twenty-fifth Amendment (Amendment XXV) to the United States Constitution deals with presidential succession and disability.
It clarifies that the vice president becomes president if the president dies, resigns, or is removed from office, and establishes how a vacancy in the office of the vice president can be filled.It also provides for the temporary transfer of the president's powers and duties to the vice president, either on the initiative of the president alone or on the initiative of the vice president together with a majority of the president's cabinet. In either case, the vice president becomes acting president until the presidential powers and duties are returned to the president.
The amendment was submitted to the states on July 6, 1965, by the 89th Congress and was adopted on February 10, 1967, the day that the requisite number of states (38) had ratified it.[1]
Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Section 1 clarifies that in the enumerated situations the vice president becomes president, instead of merely assuming the powers and duties of the presidency as acting president.[2] It operates automatically, without needing to be explicitly invoked.[3]:108
Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Section 2 provides a mechanism for filling a vacancy in the vice presidency. Before the Twenty-fifth Amendment, a vice presidential vacancy continued until a new vice president took office at the start of the next presidential term; the vice presidency had become vacant several times due to death, resignation, or succession to the presidency, and these vacancies had often lasted several years.[2]
Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Section 3 allows for the voluntary transfer of presidential authority to the vice president (for example, in anticipation of a medical procedure) by the president declaring in writing to be unable to discharge the powers and duties of the presidency. The vice president then assumes those powers and duties as acting president;[note 1] the vice president does not become president and the president remains in office, although without authority. The president regains those powers and duties upon declaring, in writing, to be again able to discharge them.[3]:112-3
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department[note 2][7] or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.[8]
Section 4 addresses the case of a president who is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the presidency but cannot, or does not, execute the voluntary declaration contemplated by Section3.[3]:117 It allows the vice president, together with a "majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide",[note 3] to issue a written declaration that the president is unable to discharge his duties. Immediately upon such a declaration being sent to Congress, the vice president becomes acting president[note 4]while (as with Section3) the president remains in office, albeit temporarily divested of authority.[9]
John Feerick, the principal drafter of the amendment,[3]:xii,xx[4]:5[10] writes that Congress deliberately left the terms unable and inability undefined "since cases of inability could take various forms not neatly fitting into [a rigid] definition... The debates surrounding the Twenty-fifth Amendment indicate that [those terms] are intended to cover all cases in which some condition or circumstance prevents the President from discharging his powers and duties..."[3]:112A survey of scholarship on the amendment found
no specific threshold medical or otherwise for the "inability" contemplated in Section4. The framers specifically rejected any definition of the term, prioritizing flexibility. Those implementing Section4 should focus on whether in an objective sense taking all of the circumstances into account the President is "unable to discharge the powers and duties" of the office. The amendment does not require that any particular type or amount of evidence be submitted to determine that the President is unable to perform his duties. While the framers did imagine that medical evidence would be helpful to the determination of whether the President is unable, neither medical expertise nor diagnosis is required for a determination of inability... To be sure, foremost in [the minds of the framers] was a physical or mental impairment. But the text of Section4 sets forth a flexible standard intentionally designed to apply to a wide variety of unforeseen emergencies.[4]:7,20
Among potential examples of such unforeseen emergencies, legal scholars have listed kidnapping of the president and "political emergencies" such as impeachment.Traits such as unpopularity, incompetence, impeachable conduct, poor judgment, or laziness might not in and of themselves constitute inability, but should such traits "rise to a level where they prevented the President from carrying out his or her constitutional duties, they still might constitute an inability, even in the absence of a formal medical diagnosis." In addition, a president who already manifested disabling traits at the time he or she was elected is not thereby immunized from a declaration of inability.[4]:21n63,22n67
The "principal officers of the executive departments" are the fifteen Cabinet members enumerated in the United States Code at 5U.S.C.101:[11][12]
Acting secretaries can participate in issuing the declaration.[3]:117-8[4]:13
If the president subsequently issues a declaration claiming to be able, then a four-day period begins during which the vice president remains acting president.[3]:118-9[4]:38n137If by the end of this period the vice president and a majority of the "principal officers" have not issued a second declaration of the president's inability, then the president resumes his powers and duties; but if they do issue a second declaration within the four days, then the vice president remains acting president while Congress considers the matter. Then if within 21 days the Senate and the House determine, each by a two-thirds vote, that the president is unable, then the vice president continues as acting president; otherwise the president resumes his powers and duties.[note 5]
Section 4's requirement of a two-thirds vote of the House and a two-thirds vote of the Senate is more strict than the Constitution's requirement for impeachment and removal of the president for "high crimes and misdemeanors" a majority of the House followed by two-thirds of the Senate.[3]:120n[14][15][16]In addition, an impeached president retains his authority unless and until the Senate votes to remove him or her at the end of an impeachment trial; in contrast, should Congress be called upon to decide the question of the president's ability or inability under Section4, presidential authority remains in the hands of the vice president (as acting president) unless and until the question is resolved in the president's favor.[3]:11820
ArticleII, Section1, Clause6 of the Constitution reads:
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President...
This provision is ambiguous as to whether, in the enumerated circumstances, the vice president becomes the president, or merely assumes the "powers and duties" of the presidency. It also fails to define what constitutes inability, or how questions concerning inability are to be resolved.[17] The Twenty-fifth Amendment addressed these deficiencies.[2] The ambiguities in ArticleII, Section1, Clause6 of the Constitution regarding death, resignation, removal, or disability of the president created difficulties several times:
The 1951 novel The Caine Mutiny and its 1954 film version influenced the drafters of the amendment. John D. Feerick told The Washington Post in 2018 that the film was a live depiction of the type of crisis that could arise "if a president ever faced questions about physical or mental inabilities but disagreed completely with the judgment", which was not dealt with in the Constitution. Lawmakers and lawyers drafting the amendment wanted no such "Article 184 situation" as depicted in the film, in which the Vice President of the U.S. or others could topple the President by merely saying that the President was "disabled".[25]
In 1963, Senator Kenneth Keating of New York proposed a Constitutional amendment which would have enabled Congress to enact legislation providing for how to determine when a president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the presidency, rather than, as the Twenty-fifth Amendment does, having the Constitution so provide.[26]:345 This proposal was based upon a recommendation of the American Bar Association in 1960.[26]:27
The text of the proposal read:[26]:350
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the said office shall devolve on the Vice President. In case of the inability of the President to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the said powers and duties shall devolve on the Vice President, until the inability be removed. The Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then be President, or, in case of inability, act as President, and such officer shall be or act as President accordingly, until a President shall be elected or, in case of inability, until the inability shall be earlier removed. The commencement and termination of any inability shall be determined by such method as Congress shall by law provide.
Senators raised concerns that the Congress could either abuse such authority,[26]:30 or neglect to enact any such legislation after the adoption of this proposal.[26]:3435 Tennessee senator Estes Kefauver, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, a long-time advocate for addressing the disability question, spearheaded the effort until he died in August 1963.[26]:28 Senator Keating was defeated in the 1964 election, but Senator Roman Hruska of Nebraska took up Keating's cause as a new member of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments.[24]
By the 1960s, medical advances had made increasingly plausible that an injured or ill president might live a long time while incapacitated. The assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963 underscored the need for a clear procedure for determining presidential disability,[27] particularly since the new president, Lyndon Johnson, had once suffered a heart attack[28] and with the office of vice president to remain vacant until the next term began on January 20, 1965 the next two people in the line of succession were the 71-year-old speaker of the House John McCormack[27][29] and the 86-year-old Senate president pro tempore Carl Hayden.[27][29] Senator Birch Bayh succeeded Kefauver as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments and set about advocating for a detailed amendment dealing with presidential disability.[27]
On January 6, 1965, Senator Birch Bayh proposed S.J. Res.1 in the Senate and Representative Emanuel Celler (Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee) proposed H.J. Res.1 in the House of Representatives. Their proposal specified the process by which a president could be declared "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office", thereby making the vice president an acting president, and how the president could regain the powers of their office. Also, their proposal provided a way to fill a vacancy in the office of vice president before the next presidential election. This was as opposed to the KeatingKefauver proposal, which neither provided for filling a vacancy in the office of vice president prior to the next presidential election, nor provided a process for determining presidential disability. In 1964, the American Bar Association endorsed the type of proposal which Bayh and Celler advocated.[26]:348350 On January 28, 1965, President Johnson endorsed S.J. Res.1 in a statement to Congress.[24] Their proposal received bipartisan support.[5]:6
On February 19, the Senate passed the amendment, but the House passed a different version of the amendment on April13. On April22 it was returned to the Senate with revisions.[24] There were four areas of disagreement between the House and Senate versions:
On July 6, after a conference committee ironed out differences between the versions,[30] the final version of the amendment was passed by both Houses of the Congress and presented to the states for ratification.[26]:354358
Nebraska was the first state to ratify, on July12, 1965, and ratification became complete when Nevada became the 38th state to ratify, on February10, 1967.[note 6]
When President Lyndon B. Johnson underwent planned surgery in 1965, he was unable to temporarily transfer power to Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey because ratification remained incomplete. On February23, 1967, at the White House ceremony certifying the ratification, Johnson said:
It was 180 years ago, in the closing days of the Constitutional Convention, that the Founding Fathers debated the question of Presidential disability. John Dickinson of Delaware asked this question: "What is the extent of the term 'disability' and who is to be the judge of it?" No one replied. It is hard to believe that until last week our Constitution provided no clear answer. Now, at last, the 25th amendment clarifies the crucial clause that provides for succession to the Presidency and for filling a Vice Presidential vacancy.[33]
On October 10, 1973, Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned; two days later President Richard Nixon nominated Representative Gerald Ford to replace Agnew as new vice president pursuant to Section2. Ford was confirmed by the Senate and the House on November27 and December6 respectively, and sworn in December6.[34]
On August 9, 1974 Nixon resigned and Ford became president under Section1; Ford is the only president to have been elected neither president nor vice president.[35]The office of vice president was thus again vacant, and on August20 President Ford nominated former New York governor Nelson Rockefeller.[3]:167169 Rockefeller was confirmed by the Senate and the House on December 10 and 19 respectively, and sworn in December 19.[3]:186187
Feerick writes that the Twenty-fifth Amendment helped pave the way for Nixon's resignation during the Watergate scandal. Nixon and Agnew were Republicans, and in the months immediately following Agnew's resignation, with the vice presidency empty, removal or resignation of Nixon would have transferred the presidential powers to House Speaker Carl Albert, a Democrat. But once Ford (a Republican) became vice president under Section 2, removal of Nixon became more palatable because it would, now, not result in a change in the party holding the presidency, and therefore "the momentum for exposing the truth about Nixon's involvement in Watergate increased."[3]:158
On December 22, 1978, President Jimmy Carter considered invoking Section3 in advance of hemorrhoid surgery.[36] Since then, presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama also considered invoking Section3 at various times without doing so.[37]
On July 12, 1985, President Ronald Reagan underwent a colonoscopy and was diagnosed with bowel cancer. He elected to have the lesion removed immediately,[38] and consulted with White House counsel Fred Fielding about whether to invoke Section3, and in particular about whether doing so would set an undesirable precedent. Fielding and White House Chief of Staff Donald Regan recommended that Reagan transfer power, and two letters were drafted: one specifically invoking Section3, the other mentioning only that Reagan was mindful of its provisions. On July 13, Reagan signed the second letter[39] before being placed under general anesthesia for a colectomy,[40] and Vice President George H. W. Bush was acting president from 11:28a.m. until 7:22p.m., when Reagan transmitted a letter declaring himself able to resume his duties.[41]
In the Fordham Law Review, commentator John Feerick asserted that although Reagan disclaimed any use of the Twenty-fifth Amendment in his letter (likely out of "fear of the reaction of the country and the world to a 'President' who admitted to being disabled, and concern ... [over] set[ting] a harmful precedent"), he followed the process set forth in Section3. Furthermore, Feerick noted that "no constitutional provision except the Twenty-Fifth Amendment would have allowed" him to designate the vice president as acting president. Reagan later stated in a memoir that he had, in fact, invoked the Twenty-fifth Amendment.[42]
On June 29, 2002, President George W. Bush explicitly invoked Section3 in temporarily transferring his powers to Vice President Dick Cheney before undergoing a colonoscopy, which began at 7:09a.m. Bush awoke about forty minutes later, but did not resume his presidential powers until 9:24a.m. to ensure any aftereffects had cleared.[39][43] According to his staff, Acting President Cheney held his regular national security and homeland security meetings with aides at the White House, but made no appearances and took no recorded actions while being acting president.[43]
In the view of commentator Adam Gustafson, this confident application of Section3 "rectified" President Reagan's "ambivalent invocation" and provided an example of a "smooth and temporary transition" under Section3 that paved the way for future applications. Together with the 2007 invocation, it established the reasonableness of invocation for relatively minor inabilities, promoting continuity in the Executive Branch.[44]
On July 21, 2007, Bush again invoked Section3 before another colonoscopy. Cheney was acting president from 7:16a.m. until 9:21a.m.[39] During that time, Vice President Cheney (as acting president) remained at home.[44] This 2007 invocation and the 2002 invocation received relatively little attention in the press overall.[44]
On November 19, 2021, President Joe Biden temporarily transferred his powers and duties to Vice President Kamala Harris before undergoing a colonoscopy, making her acting president from 10:10 a.m. until 11:35 a.m.[45][46] Harris is the first woman to hold the powers and duties of the U.S. presidency.[47][48]
Section 4 has never been invoked, though on several occasions its use was considered.
Following the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan on March30, 1981, Vice President George H. W. Bush did not assume the presidential powers and duties as acting president. Reagan had been rushed into surgery with no opportunity to invoke Section3; Bush did not invoke Section4 because he was on a plane at the time of the shooting, and Reagan was out of surgery by the time Bush landed in Washington.[49] In 1995, Birch Bayh, the primary sponsor of the amendment in the Senate, wrote that Section4 should have been invoked.[50] Physician to the President Daniel Ruge, who supervised Reagan's treatment immediately after the shooting, said he had erred by not having Reagan invoke Section3 because the president needed general anesthesia and was in an intensive care unit.[51]
From the end of the 1980s onwards, Reagan's political opponents alleged that he showed signs of dementia.[52] According to Reagan biographer Edmund Morris, staffers to White House chief of staff Howard Baker intended to use their first meeting with Reagan in 1987 to evaluate whether he was "losing his mental grip". However, Reagan "came in stimulated by the press of all these new people and performed splendidly".[53][54][55]
Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1994, five years after leaving office.[56] The president told neurosurgeon Daniel Ruge, according to Ruge in 1980, that he expected doctors to test his memory, and promised to resign if it deteriorated. After the 1994 diagnosis, Ruge said he never found any sign of Alzheimer's while talking to him almost every day from 1981 to 1985.[51]
After President Donald Trump dismissed FBI director James Comey in May 2017, acting FBI director Andrew McCabe claimed that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein held high-level discussions within the Justice Department about approaching Vice President Mike Pence and the Cabinet about possibly invoking Section4.[57] Miles Taylor, who anonymously authored "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration" and A Warning, also wrote that he and other aides considered approaching Pence to invoke the Twenty-fifth Amendment.[58] A spokesperson later said that Rosenstein denied pursuing the Twenty-fifth Amendment, and Pence strongly denied considering invoking Section4.[58][59] On March 15, 2019, Senator Lindsey Graham stated the Senate Judiciary Committee would investigate the discussions and seek related documents.[60]
After the storming of the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, President Trump was accused of having incited the incident,[61][62][63] leading to several calls for Section4 to be invoked. Proponents included Representatives Ted Lieu and Charlie Crist, former Defense Secretary William Cohen, and the National Association of Manufacturers (which asked Vice President Pence to "seriously consider" invoking the amendment).[64] By evening, some of Trump's Cabinet members were also reportedly considering invoking Section4.[65] In a New York magazine article, law professor Paul Campos also supported using Section4 "immediately" and "for the good of the nation."[66] On January 7, incoming Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer and Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi also called for Section4 to be invoked.[67][68]
The following states have not ratified:
See the article here:
Double Jeopardy Clause – Wikipedia
U.S. constitutional law preventing repeated punishment for the same crime
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..."[1] The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:
Jeopardy attaches in jury trial when the jury is empaneled and sworn in, in a bench trial when the court begins to hear evidence after the first witness is sworn in, or when a court accepts a defendant's plea unconditionally.[2] Jeopardy does not attach in a retrial of a conviction that was reversed on appeal on procedural grounds (as opposed to evidentiary insufficiency grounds), in a retrial for which "manifest necessity" has been shown following a mistrial, and in the seating of another grand jury if the prior one refuses to return an indictment.
In United States v. Felix, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled: "a[n]...offense and a conspiracy to commit that offense are not the same offense for double jeopardy purposes."[3][4][5]
Sometimes the same conduct may violate different statutes. If all elements of a lesser offense are relied on to prove a greater offense, the two crimes are the "same offense" for double jeopardy purposes, and the doctrine will bar the second prosecution. This ruling in Felix distinguished between the test in Blockburger and the ruling in Grady v. Corbin regarding the "same conduct" vs "same offense" test, which was later overruled and completely reverted back to Blockburger in United States v. Dixon. In Blockburger v. United States, the Supreme Court held that "where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not".[6] The test was applied in Brown v. Ohio, where the defendant had first been convicted of operating an automobile without the owner's consent, and later of stealing the same automobile. The Supreme Court concluded that the same evidence was necessary to prove both offenses, and that in effect there was only one offense. Therefore, it overturned the second conviction.[7]
In other cases, the same conduct may constitute multiple offenses under the same statute, for instance where one robs many individuals at the same time. There is no explicit bar to separate prosecutions for different offenses arising under the same "criminal transaction", but it is not permissible for the prosecution to re-litigate facts already determined by a jury. In Ashe v. Swenson, the defendant was accused of robbing seven poker players during a game. John Ashe was first tried for, and acquitted of, robbing only one of the players; the defense did not contest that a robbery actually took place. The state then tried the defendant for robbing the second player; stronger identification evidence led to a conviction. The Supreme Court, however, overturned the conviction. It was held that in the first trial, since the defense had not presented any evidence that there was no robbery, the jury's acquittal had to be based on the conclusion that the defendant's alibi was valid. Since one jury had held that the defendant was not present at the crime scene, the State could not re-litigate the issue.[8]
Once acquitted, a defendant may not be retried for the same offense: "A verdict of acquittal, although not followed by any judgment, is a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same offense."[9] Acquittal by directed verdict is also final and cannot be appealed by the prosecution.[10] An acquittal in a trial by judge (bench trial) is also generally not appealable by the prosecution.[11] A trial judge may normally enter an acquittal if he deems the evidence insufficient for conviction. If the judge makes this ruling before the jury reaches its verdict, the judge's determination is final. If, however, the judge overrules a conviction by the jury, the prosecution may appeal to have the conviction reinstated. Although a judge may overrule a guilty verdict by a jury, a judge does not have the same power to overrule a not guilty verdict.
More specifically, as stated in Ashe, "...when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit."[12] Res judicata is a term of general application. Underneath that conceptual umbrella is the concept of collateral estoppel. As applied to double jeopardy, the court will use collateral estoppel as its basis for forming an opinion[citation needed].
Every charge has specific facts that must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction. And it is not unusual for a prosecutor to charge a person with "lesser included offenses". An oft-mentioned combination is first- and second-degree murder, with second-degree murder being the lesser offense. A person convicted on the lesser charge can never again be tried on the greater charge. If the conviction on the lesser charge is overturned, the greater charge does not then come back into play.
The Supreme Court ruled as such in Green v. United States, establishing the doctrine of "implied acquittal". Everett Green had been tried on charges of arson and first and second degree murder in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. He was convicted on arson and the lesser offense of second degree murder. The verdict was silent on the greater offense. His conviction was overturned due to the appellate court deciding there wasn't enough evidence, remanding for a new trial. At the second trial, he was tried again with arson, first and second degree murder, convicted on the greater offense and sentenced to death.[13]
He appealed, claiming the second trial should not have included the greater offense under the Double Jeopardy Clause. The D.C. Circuit Court rejected the claim. The Supreme Court of the United States overruled, stating that Green was acquitted of first degree murder and, under the Fifth Amendment, could not be retried on that charge.
At Green's first trial, the jury was authorized to find him guilty of either first degree murder (killing while perpetrating a felony) or, alternatively, of second degree murder (killing with malice aforethought). The jury found him guilty of second degree murder, but, on his appeal, that conviction was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. At this new trial, Green was tried again, not for second degree murder, but for first degree murder, even though the original jury had refused to find him guilty on that charge and it was in no way involved in his appeal. For the reasons stated hereafter, we conclude that this second trial for first degree murder placed Green in jeopardy twice for the same offense in violation of the Constitution.[14]
That the jury did not explicitly return an acquittal on first degree murder in its verdict is immaterial:
In brief, we believe this case can be treated no differently, for purposes of former jeopardy, than if the jury had returned a verdict which expressly read: "We find the defendant not guilty of murder in the first degree but guilty of murder in the second degree."[15]
This case did, in effect, overrule a preceding per curiam decision, that of Brantley v. Georgia.[16] In that case, the lesser charge was voluntary manslaughter and the greater charge was murder. Brantley was convicted on the lesser charge, but was convicted on the greater charge at retrial after the conviction was overturned. He appealed, arguing the inclusion of the greater charge at retrial violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Supreme Court rejected that argument: "It was not a case of twice in jeopardy under any view of the Constitution of the United States."
The Supreme Court explicitly overruled Brantley in another, near-identical case, Price v. Georgia:
While the Brantley holding may have had some vitality at the time the Georgia courts rendered their decisions in this case, it is no longer a viable authority and must now be deemed to have been overruled by subsequent decisions of this Court.[17]
The lesser and greater offenses in Price are identical to Brantley, with both being convicted on the lesser offense, and retried on the same charges as in the original trial after the conviction is overturned. Unlike Brantley, Price was convicted again on the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter and given a similar sentence. Price appealed that conviction. The State of Georgia contended that since Price was not convicted on the greater offense at retrial, which was the case in Brantley, the second indictment constituted "harmless error". The Supreme Court rejected that idea:
The Double Jeopardy Clause, as we have noted, is cast in terms of the risk or hazard of trial and conviction, not of the ultimate legal consequences of the verdict. To be charged and to be subjected to a second trial for first-degree murder is an ordeal not to be viewed lightly. Further, and perhaps of more importance, we cannot determine whether or not the murder charge against petitioner induced the jury to find him guilty of the less serious offense of voluntary manslaughter rather than to continue to debate his innocence.[17]
Noting that the murder charge may have poisoned the jury against Price, the Supreme Court vacated the voluntary manslaughter conviction and remanded the case.
As double jeopardy applies only to charges that were the subject of an earlier final judgment, there are many situations in which it does not apply, despite the appearance of a retrial. For example, a second trial held after a mistrial does not violate the double jeopardy clause because a mistrial ends a trial prematurely without a judgment of guilty or not, as was decided by the Supreme Court in United States v. Perez.[18] Cases involuntarily dismissed because of insufficient evidence may constitute a final judgment for these purposes, though many state and federal laws allow for substantially limited prosecutorial appeals from these orders. Also, a retrial after a conviction that had been set aside upon a motion for new trial, and that subsequently has been reversed on appeal or vacated in a collateral proceeding (such as habeas corpus) would not violate double jeopardy, for the judgment in the first trial had been invalidated. In all of these cases, however, the previous trials do not entirely vanish. Testimony from them may be used in later retrials, such as to impeach contradictory testimony given at any subsequent proceeding.
Prosecutors may appeal when a trial judge sets aside a jury verdict for conviction with a judgment notwithstanding verdict for the defendant. A successful appeal by the prosecution would simply reinstate the jury verdict and so would not place the defendant at risk of another trial.
If a defendant appeals a conviction and is successful in having it overturned, the defendant may be subject to retrial.
Retrial is not possible if the verdict is overturned on the grounds of evidentiary insufficiency, rather than on the grounds of procedural faults. As noted above, if the trial court made a determination of evidentiary insufficiency, the determination would constitute a final acquittal; in Burks v. United States, the Court held that "it should make no difference that the reviewing court, rather than the trial court, determined the evidence to be insufficient."[19]
If the earlier trial is a fraud, double jeopardy will not prohibit a new trial because the party acquitted has prevented themselves from being placed into jeopardy to begin with. One such case is the trial of Harry Aleman, who was tried and acquitted in 1977 in Cook County, Illinois for the September 1972 death of William Logan. Nearly 20 years later, two persons under Federal Witness Protection came forward to state that Aleman murdered Logan and another individual, and also bribed the trial judge to return an acquittal.[20]
Following on the new evidence, the Cook County State's Attorney in December 1993 filed new charges alleging Aleman killed William Logan, an identical allegation for which Aleman had been previously acquitted. He was convicted on that charge and sentenced to 100 to 300 years in prison. He appealed that conviction and the indictment, challenging that the second prosecution was barred under the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Seventh Circuit disagreed, stating first that "jeopardy denotes risk", citing Breed v. Jones:
In the constitutional sense, jeopardy describes the risk that is traditionally associated with criminal prosecution.[21]
And also citing Serfass:
Without risk of a determination of guilt, jeopardy does not attach, and neither an appeal nor further prosecution constitutes double jeopardy In particular, it has no significance in this context unless jeopardy has once attached and an accused has been subjected to the risk of conviction.[22]
The Seventh Circuit declared that, in rejecting the Double Jeopardy claim, even with the slight risk of conviction following the bribe, Aleman still nullified any legitimate risk:
Aleman may be correct that some risk of conviction still existed after Judge Wilson agreed to fix the case, but it cannot be said that the risk was the sort "traditionally associated" with an impartial criminal justice system.[23]
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not attach in a grand jury proceeding, or bar a grand jury from returning an indictment when a prior grand jury has refused to do so.[24]
A person who is convicted of one set of charges cannot in general be tried on additional charges related to the crime unless said additional charges cover new facts against which the person in question has not yet been acquitted or convicted. The test that determines whether this can occur is the Blockburger test.
An example of this are the charges of "conspiring to commit murder" and "murder". Both charges typically have facts distinct from each other. A person can be charged with "conspiring to commit murder" even if the murder never actually takes place if all facts necessary to support the charge can be demonstrated through evidence. Further, a person convicted or acquitted of murder can, additionally, be tried on conspiracy as well if it has been determined after the conviction or acquittal that a conspiracy did, in fact, take place.
Mistrials are generally not covered by the double jeopardy clause. If a judge dismisses the case or concludes the trial without deciding the facts in the defendant's favor (for example, by dismissing the case on procedural grounds), the case is a mistrial and may normally be retried.[citation needed] Furthermore, if a jury cannot reach a verdict, the judge may declare a mistrial and order a retrial as was addressed in Perez. When the defendant moves for a mistrial, there is no bar to retrial, even if the prosecutor or judge caused the error that forms the basis of the motion. An exception exists, however, where the prosecutor or judge has acted in bad faith. In Oregon v. Kennedy, the Supreme Court held that "only where the governmental conduct in question is intended to 'goad' the defendant into moving for a mistrial may a defendant raise the bar of double jeopardy to a second trial after having succeeded in aborting the first on his own motion."[25]
The defendant may not be punished twice for the same offense. In certain circumstances, however, a sentence may be increased. It has been held that sentences do not have the same "finality" as acquittals, and may therefore be reviewed by the courts.[citation needed]
The prosecution may not seek capital punishment in the retrial if the jury did not impose it in the original trial. The reason for this exception is that before imposing the death penalty the jury has to make several factual determinations and if the jury does not make these it is seen as the equivalent of an acquittal of a more serious offense.
In Arizona v. Rumsey, a judge had held a separate hearing after the jury trial to decide if the sentence should be death or life imprisonment, in which he decided that the circumstances of the case did not permit death to be imposed. On appeal, the judge's ruling was found to be erroneous. However, even though the decision to impose life instead of death was based on an erroneous interpretation of the law by the judge, the conclusion of life imprisonment in the original case constituted an acquittal of the death penalty and thus death could not be imposed upon a subsequent trial. Even though the acquittal of the death penalty was erroneous in that case, the acquittal must stand.[26]
Double jeopardy also does not apply if the later charge is civil rather than criminal in nature, which involves a different legal standard (crimes must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas civil wrongs need only be proven by preponderance of evidence or in some matters, clear and convincing evidence). Acquittal in a criminal case does not prevent the defendant from being the defendant in a civil suit relating to the same incident (though res judicata operates within the civil court system). For example, O. J. Simpson was acquitted of a double homicide in a California criminal prosecution, but lost a civil wrongful death claim brought over the same victims.[27]
Defendants happening to be on parole from an earlier offense at the time may also be the subject of a parole violation hearing, which is not considered to be a criminal trial. Since parolees are usually subject to restrictions not imposed on other citizens, evidence of actions that were not deemed to be criminal by the court may be re-considered by the parole board. This legal board could deem the same evidence to be proof of a parole violation. Most states' parole boards have looser rules of evidence than is found in the courts for example, hearsay that had been disallowed in court might be considered by a parole board. Finally, like civil trials parole violation hearings are also subject to a lower standard of proof so it is possible for a parolee to be punished by the parole board for criminal actions that they were acquitted of in court.
In the American military, courts-martial are subject to the same law of double jeopardy, since the Uniform Code of Military Justice has incorporated all of the protections of the U.S. Constitution. The non-criminal proceeding non-judicial punishment (or NJP) is considered to be akin to a civil case and is subject to lower standards than a court-martial, which is the same as a civilian court of law. NJP proceedings are commonly used to correct or punish minor breaches of military discipline. If a NJP proceeding fails to produce conclusive evidence, however, the commanding officer (or ranking official presiding over the NJP) is not allowed to prepare the same charge against the military member in question. In a court-martial, acquittal of the defendant means he is protected permanently from having those charges reinstated.
The most famous American court case invoking the claim of double jeopardy is probably the second murder trial in 1876 of Jack McCall, killer of Wild Bill Hickok. McCall was acquitted in his first trial, which Federal authorities later ruled to be illegal because it took place in an illegal town, Deadwood, then located in South Dakota Indian Territory. At the time, Federal law prohibited all except Native Americans from settling in the Indian Territory. McCall was retried in Federal Indian Territorial court, convicted, and hanged in 1877. He was the first person ever executed by Federal authorities in the Dakota Territory.
Double jeopardy also does not apply if the defendant was never tried from the start. Charges that were dropped or put on hold for any reason can always be reinstated in the futureif not barred by some statute of limitations.
Although the Fifth Amendment initially applied only to the federal government, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the double jeopardy clause applies to the states as well through incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment.[28]
The double jeopardy clause generally doesn't protect a person from being prosecuted by both a state government and the United States federal government for the same act, nor does it protect a person from being prosecuted by multiple states for the same act. Because United States law considers each of the State governments to be distinct from the federal government of the United States as a whole, with its own laws and court systems, these parallel prosecutions are considered to be different "offenses" under the double jeopardy clause, and the decisions of one government on what to prosecute or not prosecute can't be considered binding on the other. This is known as the "dual sovereignty" or "separate sovereigns" doctrine.
The earliest case at the Supreme Court of the United States to address the matter is Fox v. Ohio in 1847, in which the petitioner, Malinda Fox, was appealing a conviction of a state crime of passing a counterfeit silver dollar. The power to coin money is granted exclusively to Congress, and it was argued that Congress's power precludes the power of any State from prosecuting any crimes pertaining to the money, an argument the Supreme Court rejected in upholding Fox's conviction.[29]
A case that followed on Fox is United States v. Cruikshank, in which the Supreme Court stated that the government of the United States is a separate sovereign from any State:
This does not, however, necessarily imply that the two governments possess powers in common, or bring them into conflict with each other. It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. In return, he can demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction.[30]
In 1920 the United States was fresh into the Prohibition Era. In one prosecution that occurred in Washington state, a defendant named Lanza was charged under a Washington statute and simultaneously under a United States statute, with the federal indictment stating several facts also stated in the Washington indictment. The Supreme Court addressed the question of the Federal government and a State government having separate prosecutions on the same facts in United States v. Lanza:
We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject matter within the same territory. Each may, without interference by the other, enact laws to secure prohibition, with the limitation that no legislation can give validity to acts prohibited by the amendment. Each government in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other.
It follows that an act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both and may be punished by each. The Fifth Amendment, like all the other guaranties in the first eight amendments, applies only to proceedings by the federal government (Barron v. City of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243), and the double jeopardy therein forbidden is a second prosecution under authority of the federal government after a first trial for the same offense under the same authority. (EDITOR'S NOTE: the Barron precedent was superseded 35 years later by the 14th Amendment)[31]
This separation of sovereignty is seen with the separate Federal and State trials of convicted Oklahoma City bombing co-conspirator Terry Nichols. Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh were tried and convicted in Federal Court, with Nichols sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole, and McVeigh sentenced to death and later executed. While the building was owned by the Federal government, serving as branch locations for multiple Federal agencies, the Federal government had criminal jurisdiction only over 8 of the 168 confirmed deaths. With the express intent of seeing Nichols also sentenced to death, while contemplating the same for McVeigh if his death sentence was overturned on appeal, the State of Oklahoma filed charges against Terry Nichols.[32]
There may also be Federal laws that call other facts into question beyond the scope of any State law. A state may try a defendant for murder, after which the Federal government might try the same defendant for a Federal crime (perhaps a civil rights violation or a kidnapping) connected to the same act. The officers of the Los Angeles Police Department who were charged with assaulting Rodney King in 1991 were acquitted by a jury of the Superior Courts of California, but some were later convicted and sentenced in Federal court for violating King's civil rights. Similar legal processes were used for prosecuting racially motivated crimes in the Southern United States in the 1960s during the time of the Civil Rights Movement, when those crimes had not been actively prosecuted, or had resulted in acquittals by juries that were thought to be racist or overly sympathetic with the accused in local courts.
Federal jurisdiction may apply because the defendant is a member of the armed forces or the victim(s) are armed forces members or dependents. U.S. Army Master Sergeant Timothy B. Hennis was acquitted on retrial in North Carolina for the 1985 murders of Kathryn Eastburn (31 y.o.) and her daughters, Kara (5 y.o.) and Erin (3 y.o.), stabbed to death in their home near Fort Bragg, North Carolina.[33] Two decades later, Hennis was recalled to active duty, court-martialed by the Army for the crime, convicted, and sentenced again to death.[34] Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, observed of this case, "Certainly, no one [in the US] has been exonerated and then returned to death row for the same crime except Hennis."[35] Hennis challenged jurisdiction under the Double Jeopardy Clause on appeal to the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, which rejected the challenge.[36]
Furthermore, as ruled in Heath v. Alabama, the "separate sovereigns" rule allows two states to prosecute for the same criminal act.[37] For example, if a man stood in New York and shot and killed a man standing over the border in Connecticut, both New York and Connecticut could charge the shooter with murder.[38]
In order for a state to have jurisdiction to prosecute a criminal act, either the action directly resulting in consequences such as death or injury must occur while the perpetrator is in the state and/or the consequences must occur in the state. For example, if a man piloting an airplane took off from New York, flew to Connecticut and while flying over Connecticut committed a murder by dropping something from the aircraft, the only two sovereigns able to prosecute would be Connecticut and the federal government (due to the murder taking place from an aircraft) - New York would lack jurisdiction since no criminal act would have been perpetrated from there. But if the same man while still in New York remotely piloted a drone using the cellular network and used that vehicle to commit the murder in Connecticut, then three separate sovereigns could prosecute the murder (New York, Connecticut and the federal government due to the use of the unmanned aircraft as well as interstate telecommunications).
Only the states and tribal jurisdictions[39] are recognized as possessing a separate sovereignty, whereas territories of the United States,[40] the military and naval forces, and the capital city of Washington, D.C., are exclusively under Federal sovereignty. Acquittal in the court system of any of these entities would therefore preclude a re-trial (or a court-martial) in any court system under Federal jurisdiction.
The dual sovereignty nature of the Double Jeopardy Clause was reheard as part of Gamble v. United States, decided in June 2019. The Supreme Court upheld the nature of dual sovereignty between federal and state charges in a 72 decision.[41][42]
Though the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized the dual sovereignty doctrine as an exception to double jeopardy, the United States will not exercise its dual sovereignty power on everyone who becomes subject to it. As a self-imposed limitation on its dual sovereignty power, the United States Department of Justice has a policy called the Petite policy, named after Petite v. United States.[43] The formal name of the policy is "Dual and Successive Prosecution Policy"[44] and it "establishes guidelines for the exercise of discretion by appropriate officers of the Department of Justice in determining whether to bring a federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transactions involved in a prior state or federal proceeding."
Under this policy, the Department of Justice presumes that any prosecution at the State level for any fact applicable to any Federal charge vindicates any Federal interest in those facts, even if the outcome is an acquittal. As an example, a person who commits murder within the jurisdiction of a State is subject to that State's murder statute and the United States murder statute (18U.S.C.1111). The Federal government will defer to the State to prosecute under their statute. Whatever the outcome of the trial, acquittal or conviction, the Department of Justice will presume that prosecution to vindicate any Federal interest and will not initiate prosecution under the United States Code.
However that presumption can be overcome. The policy stipulates five criteria that may overcome that presumption (particularly for an acquittal at the State level):
The presumption may be overcome even when a conviction was achieved in the prior prosecution in the following circumstances:
The presumption also may be overcome, irrespective of the result in a prior state prosecution, in those rare cases where the following three conditions are met:
The existence of any of these criteria is to be determined by an Assistant Attorney General of the United States. If a prosecution is determined to have proceeded without authorization, the Federal government may and has requested the Court vacate an indictment. Such a move is in line with the Courts vacating indictments wherein prosecutions were discovered to have violated Department of Justice policy. Indictments have also been vacated when the Federal government first represents to the Court the prosecution was authorized but later determines that authorization to have been mistaken.[45]
Here is the original post:
CBIC notifies Central Goods And Services Tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 In Accordance With 48th GST… – Live Law – Indian Legal News
THERALINK TECHNOLOGIES, INC. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (form 10-K) – Marketscreener.com
THERALINK TECHNOLOGIES, INC. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (form 10-K)Â Â Marketscreener.com
Excerpt from: