Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: Members of the New York delegation, joined by first responders, survivors and family members, lamented an announcement by the Justice Department that the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund is running low on money and future payments may be cut by up to 70 percent. Comedian Jon Stewart, a longtime advocate for 9/11 responders, called the Feb. 15 announcement by the fund’s special master “unconscionable” and said Congress has a moral obligation to step in. At a news conference at the Capitol, Stewart said it was “nonsense” that first responders and their families again have to “beg” Congress for money nearly 18 years after the attacks. “This is nonsense. This is theater. You know it and I know it,” Stewart said. “If the American people in their busy lives had any sense that these shenanigans were going on, they would be outraged.” He and other speakers urged Congress to act quickly to restore the fund and ensure it has enough money to pay benefits for the next 70 years — or as long as victims need it. Anything less than full and permanent funding is “shameful,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., adding the death toll from the 2001 attacks “is still growing.” “It should not be a fight to pass this bill again,” Gillibrand said. The collapse of the World Trade Center in September 2001 sent a cloud of thick dust billowing over Lower Manhattan. Fires burned for weeks. Thousands of construction workers, police officers, firefighters and others spent time working in the soot, often without proper respiratory protection. In the years since, many have seen their health decline, some with respiratory or digestive-system ailments that appeared almost immediately, others with illnesses that developed as they aged, including cancer. Nearly 40,000 people have applied to the federal fund for people with illnesses potentially related to being at the World Trade Center site, the Pentagon or Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after the attacks. About 19,000 claims are pending. Nearly $5 billion in benefits have been awarded out of the $7.3 billion fund. Rupa Bhattacharyya, special master of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, said she was “painfully aware of the inequity” of the potential cuts, but said awarding some funds for every valid claim would be preferable to sending some legitimate claimants away empty-handed. Fund officials estimate it would take another $5 billion to pay pending claims and claims that officials anticipate will be submitted before the fund’s December 2020 deadline. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the cost of restoring the program is minimal compared to the cruelty of failing to do so. “A great nation cannot nickel-and-dime people that have sacrificed their health on our behalf,” he said. Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., said the 9/11 attacks “were not just a New York event” or an East Coast event, but were an attack on all Americans. “This is a sea-to-shining-sea moment, a sea-to-shining sea promise, a sea-to-shining-sea obligation,” Gardner said. The victims’ fund should “not be extended for a moment but for a lifetime,” he added. Stewart, reverting to comic form, said the victims’ fund was “like a Starbucks card. We’re just asking to get a little more money.” Claim: Lawmakers, first responders sound alarm on 9/11 fund.

Ex Output:
More than 17 years after the 9/11 attacks, first responders and their advocates were back at the Capitol Monday urging Congress to ensure that a victims’ compensation fund does not run out of money.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "The cost of the drug wasn’t mentioned – a big oversight. Other news stories pegged it at about $35,000 a year. Adequate job. The story explained: ""But experts stress that Benlysta is not a miracle drug: It only worked in 35 percent of North American patients tested and was not effective for patients with the deadliest form of the disease. Additionally, it did not show positive results in African Americans, who are disproportionately affected by lupus."" There was no discussion of harms. An NPR story, by comparison, pointed out that ""There are side effects, of course, and some of them are pretty serious. In clinical tests involving about 2,100 people, 11 taking Benlysta died compared with 4 getting placebo. About 6 percent of people taking Benlysta got serious infections compared with 5.2 percent on placebo."" The story offered an interesting historical perspective on the evidence: ""The company originally tested Benlysta, known generically as belimumab, as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. When a mid-stage trial in lupus patients failed to meet researchers’ goals in 2006, many analysts wrote the drug off and downgraded the company’s stock. But when scientists reanalyzed the data they found that the drug helped block the antibodies that cause lupus symptoms in a subset of patients."" No disease mongering of lupus. Two independent sources were quoted. Not applicable. With no other new drug approved for lupus in 56 years, there’s not been much to compare it with. The story did state that some experts thought this ""could prompt development of other drugs that are even more effective in treating the debilitating immune system disorder."" The focus of the story is FDA approval of the new drug. The headline explains that the FDA approved the first new drug for lupus in 56 years. It’s clear the story did not rely solely on a news release." Claim: FDA approves first new drug for lupus in 56 years

Ex Output:
"Good caveats, including in the patient profiled, who said, ""It’s a bittersweet thing for me because I have friends with lupus for whom this drug won’t work. There’s no one-size-fits-all for lupus and I’m just extremely fortunate that my lupus is mild and is helped by Benlysta."" The story should have discussed potential harms and costs. As the story explained, this was not only the first new lupus drug approved in 56 years, but it could be ""a milestone that medical experts say could prompt development of other drugs that are even more effective in treating the debilitating immune system disorder."""


Ex Input:
Paragraph: Since Dolly’s birth in 1996, scientists have cloned nearly two dozen kinds of mammals, including dogs, cats, pigs, cows and polo ponies, and have also created human embryos with this method. But until now, they have been unable to make babies this way in primates, the category that includes monkeys, apes and people. “The barrier of cloning primate species is now overcome,” declared Muming Poo of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Shanghai. In a paper released Wednesday by the journal Cell, he and his colleagues announced that they successfully created two macaques. The female baby monkeys, about 7 and 8 weeks old, are named Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua. “It’s been a long road,” said one scientist who tried and failed to make monkeys and was not involved in the new research, Shoukhrat Mitalipov of Oregon Health & Science University. “Finally, they did it.” The Vatican’s top bioethics official said Thursday that it was an important scientific development, but one that requires urgent ethical debate. Archbishop Vincenzio Paglia, head of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said scientific progress must have as its goal prioritizing human life, and said this could allow cloned animals to be designed for medical experimentation. But he warned that many animal lives were lost in reaching the milestone and that “we must always consider the effect of our interference in the ecosystem and evaluate the risks.” Poo said the feat shows that the cloning of humans is theoretically possible. But he said his team has no intention of doing that. Mainstream scientists generally oppose making human babies by cloning, and Poo said society would ban it for ethical reasons. Instead, he said, the goal is to create lots of genetically identical monkeys for use in medical research, where they would be particularly valuable because they are more like humans than other lab animals such as mice or rats. The process is still very inefficient — it took 127 eggs to get the two babies — and so far it has succeeded only by starting with a monkey fetus. The scientists failed to produce healthy babies from an adult monkey, though they are still trying and are awaiting the outcome of some pregnancies. Dolly caused a sensation because she was the first mammal cloned from an adult. The procedure was technically challenging. Essentially, the Chinese scientists removed the DNA-containing nucleus from monkey eggs and replaced it with DNA from the monkey fetus. These reconstituted eggs grew and divided, finally becoming an early embryo, which was then placed into female monkeys to grow to birth. The scientists implanted 79 embryos to produce the two babies. Still, the approach succeeded where others had failed. Poo said that was because of improvements in lab techniques and because researchers added two substances that helped reprogram the DNA from the fetus. That let the DNA abandon its job in the fetus, which involves things like helping to make collagen, and take on the new task of creating an entire monkey. The Chinese researchers said cloning of fetal cells could be combined with gene editing techniques to produce large numbers of monkeys with certain genetic defects that cause disease in people. The animals could then be used to study such diseases and test treatments. The researchers said their initial targets will be Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Mitalipov, noting the Chinese failed to produce healthy babies from adult cells, said he suspects attempts to clone babies from a human adult would also fail. “I don’t think it would be advisable to anyone to even think about it,” he said. Jose Cibelli, a scientist at Michigan State University, said it might be technically possible someday, but “criminal” to try now because of the suffering caused by the many lost pregnancies the process entails. If the procedure became efficient enough in monkeys, he said, society could face “a big ethical dilemma” over whether to adapt it for humans. The key step of transferring DNA might be combined with gene editing to correct genetic disorders in embryos, allowing healthy babies to be born, he said. Of course, the familiar image of human cloning involves making a copy of someone already born. That might be possible someday, but “I don’t think it should be pursued,” said researcher Dieter Egli of Columbia University. “I can’t think of a strong benefit.” Henry Greely, a Stanford University law professor who specializes in the implications of biomedical technologies, said the strongest argument he can think of would be the desire of grieving parents to produce a genetic duplicate of a dead child. But he doubts that’s a compelling enough reason to undertake the extensive and costly effort needed to get such a procedure approved, at least for “decades and decades.” Marcy Darnovsky, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society in Berkeley, California, called it unethical to subject that new child to “the psychological and emotional risks of living under the shadow of its genetic predecessor.” Human cloning could also require many women to donate eggs and to serve as surrogates, she said. At the moment, because of safety concerns, federal regulators in the U.S. would not allow making a human baby by cloning, and international scientific groups also oppose it, said biomedical ethics expert Insoo Hyun of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals condemned the monkey-cloning experiments. “Cloning is a horror show: a waste of lives, time and money — and the suffering that such experiments cause is unimaginable,” PETA Senior Vice President Kathy Guillermo said in a statement. ___ Associated Press reporters Dake Kang in Beijing and Nicole Winfield in Rome contributed to this story. ___ Follow Malcolm Ritter at @MalcolmRitter His recent work can be found at http://tinyurl.com/RitterAP ___ This Associated Press series was produced in partnership with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Claim: Scientists successfully clone monkeys; are humans up next?.

Ex Output:

For the first time, researchers have used the cloning technique that produced Dolly the sheep to create healthy monkeys, bringing science an important step closer to being able to do the same with humans.