18-01-2012 10:44 Founder and CEO of Careverge, Grant Verstandig talks about healthcare, technology and autism at CES 2012 and dicsusses the new partnership between Careverge and Autism Speaks. To learn more and join the community, please visit http://www.careverge.com
Visit link:
Careverge and Autism Speaks Partnership - Video
25-01-2012 08:31 A fun game idea to inspire your child on the Autism Spectrum to want to interact and play with you,
More:
Autism Help - Attentions Span - The Son-Rise Program - Video
23-01-2012 10:00 A new autism study suggests that kids can out grow the disorder. Catherine Lord, director of the Institute for Brain Development, talks to Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill.
Read the original post:
CBS This Morning - Autism: Can it be outgrown? - Video
02-02-2012 14:53 On January 31, 2012, military families got their say before Congress about the injustice of losing autism benefits for their children when they retire, even when due to being wounded in action. More than 100 members of the military and their supporters jammed into a Capitol Hill briefing today to talk about the special difficulties military families face caring for children with autism. The briefing was hosted by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Congressman John Larson of Connecticut
Here is the original post:
United States Congressional Briefing on Caring for Military Children with Autism - Video
27-01-2012 19:44 http://www.euronews.net Living with autism can be difficult, and helping children live with it can be overwhelming for parents. Education can play a key role. In this edition of Learning World we explore projects in China and Canada, and talk to Théo Peters, a neuro-linguist from Belgium. *Deserving recognition, China* In China, millions of children have Autism Spectrum Disorders, but because the condition is not widely recognised in the country, many of them do not get any help. However there is work going on to raise parental awareness about their children's behaviour.
Editorials
Illustration by Bloomberg View
By the Editors Mon Feb 06 00:00:00 GMT 2012
When is a person just a little different, and when is his peculiarity a symptom of a disabling disorder?
An expert panel has taken a new crack at that question, proposing a redefinition of autism and related conditions for the manual used by U.S. mental health professionals. The plan has aroused fears that it may strip many people of a diagnosis and thus the insurance and government benefits that can go with it.
So far, it’s not certain whether this would be the result. But until the consequences are known, it’s premature for the American Psychiatric Association to change the autism diagnosis in the fifth edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
The stakes are high. About 1 percent of American children are affected by autism and related disorders, according to the Centers for Disease Control. This represents a dramatic increase, which has been attributed to changes made to the diagnostic manual in 1994. That version, the DSM-IV, carved out a separate diagnosis for Asperger’s disorder, typified by social awkwardness and an all-absorbing interest in specific topics.
For the DSM-5 (the manual will use Arabic numerals from now on), the APA’s autism working group has proposed combining classic autism, Asperger’s and two related conditions into autism spectrum disorder and has tightened the requirements for arriving at the new diagnosis. For example, to diagnose an Asperger’s case under the proposed changes, a clinician would have to identify impairment in five of seven categories rather than only three in eight, as under DSM-IV.
The autism working group is confident that its language would not disqualify those who are truly autistic. It cites still-unpublished research indicating that the DSM-IV criteria, if literally applied, lead to diagnoses that two clinicians cannot agree are warranted.
Panelists cite additional analysis showing that those whose diagnoses are confirmed by two clinicians also meet the criteria of the proposed DSM-5 rules.
Unfortunately, the APA doesn’t plan to publish this research until the DSM-5 rules are final. That’s backward. Far too many people are potentially affected by the planned changes for the working group to say, in essence, “Trust us on the evidence.”
Psychiatrists know there is a relatively simple way to clear all this up. In addition to releasing the research, the APA could order a modest new study that uses a stronger means of determining who is truly autistic than clinician judgment, a method so weak the APA gives it no validity. The study would screen children with autism characteristics using both DSM-IV and the proposed DSM-5 criteria. To check the validity of the diagnoses, researchers could rely on family history, a strong validator because the disorder runs in families.
If a portion of children lose the diagnosis in the switch to DSM-5, it should be relatively easy to tell how many of them were falsely diagnosed under DSM-IV. They would be the ones without a family history of autism. If significant numbers had such a history, however, it would suggest that the proposed new standards would deprive children who genuinely have autism disorder of the care they need. Then the APA would have an opportunity to change the rules before they did any harm.
It’s conceivable that such a study could be done in time for a full airing of the issues so that the APA could still make its Dec. 31 deadline for the DSM-5. If not, the organization should resist pushing through, without sufficient evidence, a change that would mean the end of insurance, education and social support for children who need it. Although this might save some tax dollars in the short term, it would cost society more in the long run, because without support these children would be less likely to succeed as independently functioning adults.
The reason the APA dropped the Roman numerals this time around was to allow for interim revisions of its manual. The matter of autism disorder could be a perfect subject for DSM 5.1.
Read more opinion online from Bloomberg View.
To contact the Bloomberg View editorial board: view@bloomberg.net.
Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
View post:
Modified Definition of Autism Too Consequential to Rush Into Print: View
News | Mind & Brain
Experts call for small and easy changes to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the "bible" of psychiatry, so that everyone with autism spectrum disorder qualifies for a diagnosis
By Ferris Jabr | January 30, 2012 |
DIAGNOSING THE DSM: The DSM-5 should sharpen the definition of autism, if the American Psychiatric Association makes a few tweaks in time Image: UrsaHoogle, iStockphoto
People have been arguing about autism for a long time—about what causes it, how to treat it and whether it qualifies as a mental disorder. The controversial idea that childhood vaccines trigger autism also persists, despite the fact that study after study has failed to find any evidence of such a link. Now, psychiatrists and members of the autistic community are embroiled in a more legitimate kerfuffle that centers on the definition of autism and how clinicians diagnose the disorder. The debate is not pointless semantics. In many cases, the type and number of symptoms clinicians look for when diagnosing autism determines how easy or difficult it is for autistic people to access medical, social and educational services.
The controversy remains front and center because the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has almost finished redefining autism, along with all other mental disorders, in an overhaul of a hefty tome dubbed the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)—the essential reference guide that clinicians use when evaluating their patients. The newest edition of the manual, the DSM-5, is slated for publication in May 2013. Psychiatrists and parents have voiced concerns that the new definition of autism in the DSM-5 will exclude many people from both a diagnosis and state services that depend on a diagnosis.
The devilish confusion is in the details. When the APA publishes the DSM-5, people who have already met the criteria for autism in the current DSM-IV will not suddenly lose their current diagnosis as some parents have feared, nor will they lose state services. But several studies recently published in child psychiatry journals suggest that it will be more difficult for new generations of high-functioning autistic people to receive a diagnosis because the DSM-5 criteria are too strict. Together, the studies conclude that the major changes to the definition of autism in the DSM-5 are well grounded in research and that the new criteria are more accurate than the current DSM-IV criteria. But in its efforts to make diagnosis more accurate, the APA may have raised the bar for autism a little too high, neglecting autistic people whose symptoms are not as severe as others. The studies also point out, however, that minor tweaks to the DSM-5 criteria would make a big difference, bringing autistic people with milder symptoms or sets of symptoms that differ from classic autism back into the spectrum
A new chapter
Autism is a disorder in which a child's brain does not develop typically, and neurons form connections in unusual ways. The major features of autism are impaired social interaction and communication—such as delayed language development, avoiding eye-contact and difficulty making friends—as well as restricted and repetitive behavior, such as repeatedly making the same sound or intense fascination with a particular toy.
The DSM-5 subsumes autistic disorder, Asperger's disorder, childhood disintegrative disorder, and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS)—which are all distinct disorders in DSM-IV—into one category called autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The idea is that these conditions have such similar symptoms that they do not belong in separate categories, but instead fall on the same continuum.
Essentially, to qualify for a diagnosis of autistic disorder in DSM-IV, a patient must show at least six of 12 symptoms, which are divided into three groups: deficits in social interaction; deficits in communication; and repetitive and restricted behaviors and interests. In contrast, the DSM-5 divides seven symptoms of ASD into two main groups: deficits in social communication and social interaction; and restricted, repetitive behaviors and interests. (For a closer look at the changes, read the companion piece: "Autism Is Not a Math Problem". You can also compare DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria for autism on the APA's Web site.)
The APA collapsed the social interaction and communication groups from DSM-IV into one group in the new edition because research in the last decade has shown that the symptoms in these groups almost always appear together. Research and clinical experience has also established that heightened or dulled sensitivity to sensory experiences is a core feature of autism, which is why it appears in DSM-5 but not in the preceding version. The psychiatric community has generally applauded these changes to the criteria for ASD.
What is in question is how many of the DSM-5 criteria a patient must meet to receive a diagnosis—too many and the manual excludes autistic people with fewer or milder symptoms; too few and it assigns autism to people who don't have it. Since the 1980s the prevalence of autism has dramatically increased worldwide, especially in the U.S. where the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that nine per 1,000 children have been diagnosed with ASD. Many psychiatrists agree that the increase is at least partially explained by loose criteria in DSM-IV.
"If the DSM-IV criteria are taken too literally, anybody in the world could qualify for Asperger's or PDD-NOS," says Catherine Lord, one of the members of the APA's DSM-5 Development Neurodevelopmental Disorders Work Group. "The specificity is terrible. We need to make sure the criteria are not pulling in kids who do not have these disorders."
Go here to read the rest:
Redefining Autism: Will New DSM-5 Criteria for ASD Exclude Some People?
“Jerry Brown's
veto of AB926
which would allow young women to be paid for multiple egg extractions
for scientific research is one for the gals. In western Ireland
women secreted away their 'butter
and eggs'
money in anticipation of hard times. In my day every smart girl had
her 'mad money' to escape a bad situation. Secret cash for young
women is a great idea, but not when it turns on multiple cycles of
pumping powerful hormones associated (in other contexts) with ovarian
cancer into young women's bodies to produce 30 or 60 eggs a month.
That's not promoting gender equity no matter what some of our best
Democratic women leaders have to say. Selling sperm and selling eggs
are a totally different matter. One is pleasurable and safe,
the other is a complicated and invasive procedure. We need good
science and good research and freedom of choice and action. We
also need protection from false advertising. There are no
evidence based, long term studies of the effects of these hormone
injections on women ten or twenty years after the fact. Let's fund
those needed longitudinal and cohort studies and hope for the best.
In the meantime, women had best stick to 'butter and eggs' money. It
doesn't pay a lot, but it's less painful and a heck of a lot safer.”
 |
| James Gollub: 'economic therapist' Gollub Associates photo |
“A leading expert in innovation
bridge building....
“Global experience assisting
universities, institutes, government agencies and public-private
partnerships link innovation sources to innovation
seekers.
“Committed to the goal of increasing flow of needed
solutions, optimizing financial returns and sustainable economic
impacts from innovation.”
“James Gollub Associates
(JGA) LLC was launched to build on 36 years of Gollub’s
professional research and consulting experience. That experience
began with 16 years at SRI International, three years at
DRI/McGraw-Hill, five years at IDeA, nine years at ICF International
and three years with E-Cubed Ventures LLC. During that
time Gollub has worked globally to deliver
economic strategies for over 30 national, state and metropolitan
regions, develop strategies to accelerate growth of new industries
(clusters), plan public and private R&D institutes and advise on
over 15 science and technology parks.”
The need for a financial transition plan for CIRM was publicly identified as long ago as 2009 by the Little Hoover Commission in its lengthy study and has been reiterated periodically by other bodies since then. Under the terms of Prop. 71, which created the agency, CIRM has only a 10-year authority to issue state bonds, the borrowed funds that have sustained the research effort. Legal maneuvering blocked the issuance of bonds until 2007.
The California Stem Cell Report asked
the stem cell agency on May 31 for a copy of Gollub's response to the
RFP. Yesterday we asked for a copy of the contract with Gollub. Those
documents will be published when they are received.
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/tncFJBJJM5I/california-stem-cell-agencys-150000.html
“It can’t help but increase the
value of other stem cell companies.”
“In the last 6 months, though, the
industry has seen a tremendous rebound, with almost twice that number
of IPOs in half the time. And there's no sign that the great leap
into the public market is waning, with 10 more IPOs in the queue.”
Here is the text of the key comments
from the California stem cell agency in response to questions from
the California Stem Cell Report (CSCR) concerning the $21,630
contribution by Robert Klein. Here is a link to the full story on the matter.
“Is CIRM concerned about the
appearance created by the donation from Bob Klein to enable scientific
staff to attend the ISSCR meeting in Yokohoma, coming one
month after the GWG (the review group) rejected StemCells Inc's Alzheimer's application
and one month before the July Board meeting that led to the approval
of the award?”(Editor's note: It was actually two months before the board meeting.)
“No, the two items are entirely
separate with no connection. Item 1 involved Bob Klein making a
donation to allow science officers to attend a critically important
scientific meeting on stem cell research. The science officers
had originally planned on attending but then were told they
could not because of cuts in our out-of-state travel budget – Bob
Klein’s donation, without using state funds, enabled the science
officers to attend. Item 2 is an ICOC decision to fund a
research project that they felt had promise and was important for the
people of California.”
“Under the Gift Policy, the President
had the authority to accept Mr. Klein’s generous offer as a 'Direct
payment or reimbursement by third parties for the costs of general
operation or grant management administrative activities.' (Gift
Policy, Sec. III(A)(2).) Because CIRM receives gifts only
infrequently, CIRM staff determined that it would be more efficient
to report gifts to the Board on a semi-annual basis. Mr.
Klein’s donation was the first gift CIRM had received in some
years. Due to the lack of additional donations, a transition in
CIRM’s finance office, and an oversight, CIRM staff has not yet
presented a report including Mr. Klein’s gift. Staff plans to
report Mr. Klein’s gift as part of the finance report at the May
Board meeting. Because the President had the authority to
accept the gift pursuant to section III(A)(2) of the Gift Policy, it
did not require a commitment letter. (See Gift Policy, Sec.
III(C)(1) ['A Commitment Letter is not required for gifts described
under III.A.2., 3. and 4.'].) However, consistent with the
policy, Dr. Trounson sent Mr. Klein a letter of appreciation, a copy
of which we have already provided you.”
As the California stem cell agency
pushes ever more aggressively to turn research into cures, the second
largest share of its awards, in terms of numbers of grants, has gone
to efforts involving induced pluripotent cells, also known as
reprogrammed adult cells.
“All the talk and the slew of
publications about potentially using iPS cells to develop therapies
to help patients is exciting in theory, but unfortunately the reality
is that it is not entirely clear if most researchers are, from a
legal standpoint, even allowed to develop and commercialize iPS
cell-based therapies at all.
“The patent landscape for iPS cells
is complicated to put it mildly. A
Google patent search for “induced pluripotent stem cells”
produced almost 200,000 results.
“A search for “cellular
reprogramming produced more than 1,000
results.
I’m not sure all of these results are
really separate patents, but still….that’s a big complicated
mess.…..
“It is no exaggeration to say
there are likely dozens of institutions around the world wanting to
commercialize iPS cell-based products.
“Will they all have to pay expensive
licensing fees or end up in court?
…or will the patent holders
voluntarily and freely allow others to commercialize iPS cell-based
medical treatments?
“I don’t think so.
“This could get really messy.”
Here is the text of comments from
Robert Klein, former chairman of the California stem cell agency,
concerning his $21,630 donation to the agency and subsequent actions
by the agency. Klein's comments May 1 came in response to questions
from the California Stem Cell Report(CSCR) on April 30. The text of
the inquiry from CSCR precedes Klein's response. Here is a link to the story on the matter.
"I have sent the following to CIRM
asking for their response and am offering the same opportunity to
you. Here is what I sent the agency:
'The documents that I have received so
far show that after Klein gave CIRM $21,000 the agency instructed six
of its science officers to give him special access to their
activities and apparently did not object to additional instructions
from another member of the public, Melissa King, to provide Klein and
her with written summaries about their activities at the ISSCR
convention and “details” about their work at CIRM. Email
addresses of the six were also provided to Klein, who may have
additionally received their cell phone numbers although that is not
entirely clear. The CIRM documents show that the six were told to
engage in one-on-one sessions with Klein, which actually included a
third person, a wealthy Canadian mining company executive. One
document indicates that the science officers should assist in
fundraising for CIRM by identifying areas of “special importance”
to Klein and 'other donors.'
"'Additionally, Alan Trounson, at
Klein's request, invited the mining executive to a closed door
session involving the agency's international partners, a session at
which presumably valuable, little known scientific information would
be discussed and future directions charted. Trounson specifically
told the executive that it was Klein who asked that executive be
invited to the session, adding to Klein's clout in any business or
other dealings that Klein might have with the executive.'
My questions to CIRM deal with the
special treatment that was provided in connection with your donation.
I would ask you if you think that state agencies should provide this
sort of extraordinary treatment for individuals who donate to the
agency. At the very least, doesn't this raise questions about the
integrity of the agency and doubts in the public mind about whether
it can be fair and even-handed in its activities?
"In April or May of 2012 I committed
to contribute a charitable donation to CIRM to cover the travel costs
for 5-7 additional science officers to attend the International Stem
Cell Conference in Japan. It is important to CIRM that their
science officers understand the cutting edge research being developed
around the world so that CIRM does not fund redundant research; but,
to the contrary, the science officers understand how to create
networks between California scientists and scientists in other
foreign countries who are doing complementary research that can
potentially accelerate the advancements of therapies for patients. I
do not hold any financial interest in biotech companies. I have
historically been involved in encouraging international collaboration
to advance medical therapies; for patients, every day of delay in the
development of a therapy is a delay they cannot afford. To
conceptually document the value of additional scientists traveling to
these meetings, it was discussed that there should be conceptual,
bullet point summaries about the value for CIRM obtained through the
scientists discussions at the international conference. The
idea was to create bullet points of information about a few of the
most meaningful scientific concepts and contacts the science officers
benefitted from each day of attendance at the conference. I did not
participate in the selection of the science officers who attended and
I did not play any part in determining what activities they
participated in. There were two fundamental goals to the very short
one-on-one sessions that were arranged at "down time" that
would not conflict with their other activities. The first goal was to
conceptually understand if each of the science officers believed that
the benefit to the agency was sufficient to justify the cost of their
attending, when considering the learning and contacts they had gained
which might accelerate research and therapies for patients. The
second goal was to assist universities and non-profits, principally
in Canada - a research partner of CIRM - in advancing their
contributions from an existing donor or donors."The Canadian mining executive had an
important history in contributing to the International Stem Cell
Society and to Canadian non-profit research institutions. This
individual has an expert background in mining and a passionate
personal commitment to medical research; but, he does not engage in
technical discussions of research. On a conceptual basis it was
important for him to understand the spectrum of medical advances
towards therapies. His additional contributions to Canadian
non-profits could assist Canada in collaborating with California on
more international research, with California only funding the
research done in California and the donor helping to fund the
research done in Canada. No specific grant applications were
discussed. Finally, the discussion with the international partners
focuses on the funding process and funding collaboration it does not
discuss any individual grants. The value of international
collaboration and the benefits of collaborating with new
international partners is discussed. Scientific theories and
individual grants are not discussed and new scientific information is
not presented. I attended this session of international partners to
support international collaboration; again, I do not hold any
financial interest in any biotech organizations. Additionally, I do
not have any business or financial relationship with the Canadian
mining executive. The Canadian executive, based upon family and
friends who have had chronic disease, is a significant donor to
non-profit research institutions in Canada. All of my activities, the
donation and the encouragement to develop information to validate the
future benefits of science officers traveling to international stem
cell conferences were focused on benefitting California patients with
chronic illness or injury and the agency formed through Proposition
71."
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/SBGFem2qPWo/the-klein-donation-text-of-robert.html
Here is the text of the initial
response from Robert Klein, chairman of the California stem
cell agency until July 2011, to questions from the California Stem Cell Report (CSCR)
concerning his $21,630 donation to the agency. The questions posed by
CSCR on precede the response by Klein. Here is a link to a story on
the matter.
“Why did you give the agency the
money?
“Did you place on conditions on its
use?
“Did anyone connected with the agency
indicate in advance that your donation would be desired? If so
who? Who did you deal with primarily on the donation -- Trounson,
Thomas or...?
“The donation came one month after
grant reviewers rejected StemCells Inc.'s Alzheimer's application. Do
you think it was appropriate to make the donation and then ask the
board twice to override its reviewers?
“Do you think the donation and
subsequent action on StemCells, Inc.'s Alzheimer's application will
negatively color the perception of future efforts by CIRM at private
fundraising?”
(Editor's note: The applications in this round were reviewed once in April 2012 by CIRM's full grant review group. StemCells, Inc.'s application was subject to a reevaluation after Klein's appeal in July 2012 and rejected again, but it was not a full review. Klein may be referring also an earlier round that provided grants for planning to apply for the full $20 million.)
“A Who’s
Who of San Diego’s technology, business and civic community
gathered Friday to bid farewell to Duane Roth.
The biotech entrepreneur, community leader and director of Connect
died last weekend of injuries sustained in a cycling accident.
“Among
attendees were Gayle and former Gov. Pete
Wilson, who had just celebrated his upcoming 80th birthday
with former colleagues and friends in Sacramento, county
Supervisor Ron Roberts, former
Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, Chamber
head Jerry Sanders, Preuss School
benefactors Peggy and Peter
Preuss, SDG&E CEO Jessie Knight,
and many biotech and high-tech leaders. These included Irwin
Jacobs, Ted Waitt and Denny
Sanford.”
California Gov. Jerry Brown and a flying squad of business types visited China last week, beating the drum for the Golden State in an effort to raise billions of dollars in investments.
“I do not know how this set of delegates were selected. What I do know is that this is the first of several delegations of California business delegates going to China with Governor Brown, and that more trips are scheduled. The focus of this first trip is Energy and Environment, and this might be why there is no biotech delegates in this trip. I am quite sure that they will participate in the following trips.”
(Following the posting of this item, Ron Leuty of the San Francisco Business Times gave us a heads up on the latest on the site. He reported in March that Joinn Laboratories, a Chinese contract research organization, purchased the site. Leuty said that its plans are vague about future development, but that it may lease some of the space.)
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/x57uSahTPNI/meager-california-biotech.html
The California stem cell agency this
month received what some might consider a gesture of approval from a
longtime foe – LifeNews.com.
“CIRM has been steadily moving away
from its original mission to give preferential
treatment to funding for human embryonic stem cell research
(hESCR). Instead, after adopting a renewed
emphasis on translating research into clinical trials, CIRM
has more and more shifted the bulk of its grants towards funding
research utilizing adult stem cells and other alternatives to hESCR,
such as induced
pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs).”
“(T)he lack, once again, of funding
for hESCR only serves to highlight how old and dated that approach to
finding treatments and cures increasingly seems.”
“It is important to note, however,
that we are responding to an extraordinary situation here, not
setting a precedent for research with previously stored,
de-identified specimens. The approach we have developed through
working with the Lacks family is unique because HeLa cells were taken
and used without consent, and gave rise to the most widely used human
cell line in the world, and because the family members are known by
name to millions of people.”
“Imagine if someone secretly sent
samples of your DNA to one of many companies that promise to tell you
what your genes say about you. That report would list the good news
(you’ll probably live to be 100) and the not-so-good news (you’ll
most likely develop Alzheimer’s, bipolar disorder and maybe
alcoholism). Now imagine they posted your genetic information online,
with your name on it. Some people may not mind. But I assure you,
many do: genetic information can be stigmatizing, and while it’s
illegal for employers or health insurance providers to discriminate
based on that information, this is not true for life insurance,
disability coverage or long-term care.
“'That is private family
information,” said Jeri Lacks-Whye, Lacks’s granddaughter. “It
shouldn’t have been published without our consent.'”
“This has wrapped in it science,
scientific history, ethical concerns, the bringing together of people
of very different cultures, a family with all the complications that
families have.”
“Under the pact, two descendants of
Ms. Lacks will serve on a six-member panel with scientists to review
proposals from researchers seeking to sequence the DNA of cell lines
derived from her tumor or to use DNA profiles of such cells in their
research. That gives family members a highly unusual voice in who
gets access to personal health information.
Terms call for controlled access to the
genomic data and credit to the Lacks family in papers and scientific
presentations based on the research done with the DNA data.”
“The only reason I was involved in
this is because scientists did this without the family’s consent
and then it got all of this press coverage, and no one asked the
question, 'Did the family give consent?' So I sort of waded back
in.”
“That OpEd that I
wrote was the first time I’d ever publicly expressed an opinion,
which was, 'Really?!? Are we going to continue to not ask the Lacks
family questions?' I was kind of shocked in a sense that nobody
thought to raise that issue.”
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source: