 |
 |
The Stem Cell Controversy
Page 3 of 1 2 3
Current U.S. Policy
On August 9, 2001, the Bush Administration announced that U.S. federal funds could be used to support research using selected human embryonic stem cell lines. This policy had one major sticking point: The lines had to already be in existence -- federal funds could not go to research on stem cells derived after the day of the announcement. At the time, President Bush claimed there were about 60 embryonic stem cell lines eligible for funding, and soon after the estimate went up to 78.
Stem cell researchers, however, were skeptical of the claim from the beginning, arguing that the number of lines actually available was far lower. The skepticism has been borne out -- as of March 2004, the official NIH Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry lists just 15 eligible lines as being available for distribution to researchers, who say such a small number of lines is severely restricting many areas of medical science and delaying any therapeutic benefits that could result.
Researchers also say the current guidelines are driving top investigators to greener pastures in other countries and causing scientists to shy away from the field altogether. For example, soon after President Bush announced the stem cell policy in 2001, one major stem cell researcher, Roger Pederson, decamped from the University of California, San Francisco to Cambridge University in the United Kingdom, which has a more supportive environment. He readily acknowledges that the U.S. policy compelled him to leave.
Cloning
Creating cells through therapeutic cloning raises even more troubling questions because it involves creating embryos for medical or research purposes. After the report of the therapeutic cloning success in South Korea, Leon Kass, Chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, voiced the fears of many when he told THE NEW YORK TIMES: "The age of human cloning has apparently arrived: today cloned blastocysts for research, tomorrow cloned blastocysts for baby making."
No stem cells have been created through this method in the U.S., at least none that have been reported and verified, but no law forbids such an act either. The political fight, however, has been under way for several years. The House of Representatives twice passed bills that would ban all forms of cloning, but the Senate is deadlocked on the issue. Two competing Senate bills have had roughly equal support -- one that bans all forms of cloning, and one that bans reproductive cloning but allows therapeutic cloning. (Reproductive cloning uses somatic cell nuclear transfer to make an embryo that is placed in the womb and allowed to progress toward birth. It was used to produce Dolly the sheep in 1996. In therapeutic cloning, the embryo is not placed in a womb but used for the derivation of stem cells.) The legislative outcome is not expected to be resolved anytime soon.
Most scientists favor a ban on reproductive cloning but think therapeutic cloning should be allowed. A number of scientific organizations, notably the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, have taken this position. Some researchers contend that the therapeutic cloning achievement in South Korea is a sign that research momentum relating to stem cells has shifted overseas.
The Impact
Karen Miner, hoping to overcome her paralysis, is frustrated at the delays due to the political fight over stem cells, especially when she sees promising results from animal studies. "I was able to go down to the University of California at Irvine and see [previously paralyzed] rats walking," she said. "That was a year and a half ago, and it's still just the rats walking. If they delay it another four years, that's a lifetime sentence to my chair. I'm 52. I just can't keep going like this, sitting in a chair 17 hours a day, and expect to recover when they do find a cure. This is my window of opportunity."
Don Reed, co-founder of Californians for Cure, has a son, Roman, who was paralyzed 10 years ago in a football game. "Every scientist I talk to says this stem cell research must go forward," Reed said. "Millions of people will suffer if [Bush] wins and keeps restricting it. It's sad that the leader of the country is going against the best interest of American families."
Both sides have become entrenched. A telling sign of the depth of the divide came last month when the President's Council on Bioethics released a long-awaited report on embryonic stem cells. At the end of 417 pages, the council made no recommendations and took no particular ethical or policy position.
In the end, the easy answer everyone wants is simply not there. As John Civin, a professor of oncology at the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, has remarked, "People always ask if the new finding -- whatever it is -- means that scientific and medical goals could be accomplished by researching only 'adult' stem cells to avoid the ethical debate. The bottom line is that we don't know enough to answer that question, and we won't for some time."
Indeed, if there's one point on which virtually all stem cell scientists agree, it is that much more needs to be learned about how stem cells work in order to use them safely and effectively. Researchers have only begun to understand how the body grows and repairs itself, and increasing their knowledge is necessary before the full potential of stem cells can be determined.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Joy Veron several months after the stem cell therapy. |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
