Many Oppose Bush Plan; Others Say It's Too Limited

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61488-2001Aug10.html

Saturday, August 11, 2001; Page B01
By Michael E. Ruane
Washington Post Staff Writer

Betty Ann Krahnke watched President Bush's stem cell speech Thursday night from her wheelchair, where she has lain for much of the last two years, extensively paralyzed by Lou Gehrig's disease.

The former Montgomery County Council member thought Bush's backing of limited embryonic stem cell research, which may one day help Lou Gehrig's patients, was balanced and considered. But, she added yesterday via her computerized speaking machine, "I hoped he would go farther, because time is critical."

Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Washington, listened to the president's speech on the radio in his apartment in Hyattsville, also impressed by Bush's consideration of the issue, but pained that he may have opened a dangerous ethical door.

"Unfortunately, he does allow the allotment of federal funding . . . for something that many of us feel to be morally wrong," McCarrick said. "It opens the door to experimentation. What I'm afraid of is the restrictions are not going to hold. . . . Any time you lessen that respect for human life, you're on that slippery slope."

Their views -- one based on physical reality, the other on moral conviction -- were part of the sometimes anguished debate that spread across the Washington area and the country yesterday after the president told the nation that he supported federal funding of research into stem cells already taken from human embryos.

Opinions swirled in between and around those of the cardinal and the afflicted politician.

Krahnke, a Republican who was honorary chair of the county Bush campaign last year, had told the president her views about stem cells and her illness, which also is known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS.

"Please do not change the one policy of former President Clinton with which I agree, allowing stem cell research," she wrote Bush this summer, in a painstakingly composed five-paragraph letter.

"Stem cell research holds the best hope for a cure for ALS and many other diseases," she wrote. "I urge you not to cut off this potential lifeline."

Some embryonic stem cell research has shown promise in research into ALS, a terminal and incurable disease that destroys the motor neuron cells carrying messages from the brain to the body, experts said yesterday. But the promise is remote.

"It's very early at this point," said Lucie Bruijn, science director and vice president of the ALS Association. "There's been some very interesting and provocative data, none of which has been published or scientifically reviewed."

"Although there's a hope," she said, "there's a real challenge."

There are about 30,000 Lou Gehrig's disease patients in the United States at any given time, the experts said of the disease named for the baseball great, who died of it in 1941. There are about 5,600 new cases each year.

The president "probably did as much as he could considering the political pressures," Krahnke's husband, Wilson, said yesterday. "You don't just leap right off the bridge. You sort of take a few steps at a time. . . . I think he came up with maybe the best practical solution at this time."

Among those most torn yesterday was Eileen Gould, of Montgomery Village, in Montgomery County.

Gould is a Roman Catholic, and the Church opposes embryonic stem cell research. But Gould's husband, John, has Lou Gehrig's disease. Her daughter, Pamela, has just undergone successful in vitro fertilization that has produced several leftover embryos that have now been frozen.

Eileen Gould said yesterday that she and her husband support embryonic stem cell research. "It would be wonderful if this led to any decrease in ALS, Parkinson's, [multiple sclerosis], or Alzheimer's," she said. "The end justifies the means in this case. . . . But I'm toeing a line with my own conscience."

The local Catholic Church leader respectfully disagreed.

"I just think there were so many political and other pressures on the president that he allowed something which I think is a mistake," McCarrick said.

McCarrick said he greatly preferred research into adult stem cells taken from umbilical cords and human placentas. "We can get them without killing people, without taking these little embryos, that, if you leave them alone, will grow into people like you and me."

Others who described themselves as religious also equated the embryonic stem cell research with the taking of lives.

"These stem cells are the beginning of life," Mark Senderling, 38, a Department of Energy engineer who lives in Sandy Spring and described himself as a committed Christian. "Life starts at conception."

"I believe [Bush] to be a devout Christian as well, and he's cut a very fine line here," Senderling said in an interview on the Mall yesterday. "But I'm afraid to see where this will go."

Claudia Escribano, who works for a Web design training firm in Reston, said she supports Bush's decision to back research on existing stem cells.

The 40-year-old, a Democrat, said she thinks the research could help those afflicted with spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's disease or Alzheimer's.

"The research in that area is so important. I think you have to look at both sides," Escribano said, enjoying lunch at the Mall with her 3-year-old daughter, Caitlin. "Why not help the people who are here now?"

Outside the Montgomery County Courthouse in Rockville, David Loughery, 53, a transportation planner from Gaithersburg, said he thought Bush had gone back on a campaign promise to oppose such research. "What else is new?" he said.

"I don't particularly approve of" such research, he said. "I'm afraid that what'll happen is that instead of being used for valid research, it'll become somebody's toy."

Loughery, who said he is neither a Democrat nor a Republican, said he doubted such experiments would stop with embryos. "Eventually, somebody's going to take it to the next step, to fetuses, then somebody's going to take it to full term. . . . It's already scary."

Nearby, Dave Warren, 43, a systems engineer from Westminster, said he thought the president had gone just far enough.

"Medically, you need to do the research," he said. "But I'm opposed to raising embryos just to do it. I think it's a responsible approach. There's too many paralyzed people that are depending on a successful outcome.

"I think it was a responsible way to go: Let the research continue, but stop short of farming embryos," he said.

The debate went on across the country.

In New York, Sherry Power, a 53-year-old teacher on vacation from Milwaukee, basked in the shade of St. Patrick's Cathedral, and called Bush's announcement a "safe" solution."

"I think he was trying to please everybody," she said.

"Being adopted, I have very personal feelings about abortion," she said. "It could have been me. I have great respect for the fact that life begins at conception."

But she said she had a close friend who died of Lou Gehrig's disease. "It's such a terrible thing to watch," she said. "I have great empathy for people who are dealing with these illnesses and have no cure and see this research as a beacon of light."

In Beverly Hills, Calif., one Bush critic was more biting.

Richard Quinn, a 55-year-old screenwriter who is disabled, argued that to let politics impede science was foolhardy.

"We've always been the leaders in medical research," Quinn said. "So to put any constraints on it sounds stupid."

In Washington, the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation had mixed views about the president's stand.

"In diabetes, we know stem cell research is going to be very important," foundation spokeswoman Kathy Gold said. "We're disappointed, but at least [Bush] didn't say no totally. Hopefully, with more work on this issue, we can expand their use. It's going to make a big difference in what we can do in the future in finding a cure."

Staff writers Leef Smith, Christine Haughney, Jeff Adler and Andrew DeMillo contributed to this report. Adler reported from California.
 

© 2001 The Washington Post Company

http://finance.individual.com/display_news.asp?doc_id=RTH10a5401reuff&page=news

August 10, 2001 12:09am
Source: Reuters
By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Stem cell researchers and patients' advocates cautiously welcomed President Bush's decision to allow federal funds for embryonic stem cell research but said limits imposed on the work ultimately could ruin its promise for treating a variety of diseases.

Bush said he would allow taxpayers' money to be used on research involving stem cells harvested from live human embryos.

But he also said that the stem cells -- primitive master cells that can transform themselves into other cell types -- would have to come from 60 existing lines. Each cell line is a reservoir of stem cells derived from a single embryo.

Researchers Thursday questioned whether 60 cell lines existed and, since many are owned by private companies, whether federally funded researchers would be able to use them. Government funding allows researchers at universities to conduct work that previously limited largely to private companies or academic scientists with corporate backing.

"Well, at least they're allowing some federally funded work on human embryonic stem cells," Dr. Diane Krause, a stem cell researcher at Yale University School of Medicine, said in an interview.

But Krause said limiting the number of stem cell lines with which federally funded researchers could work meant there might not be sufficient genetic diversity in the cell reservoirs.
 

"GOOD ENOUGH FOR SOME PURPOSES"

"We need to see a variety of these in order to fully understand the applications to multiple different diseases," Krause told Reuters. "It will be good enough for some purposes. But it will be limited by its very nature of being a limited number of cell lines. What we can do with them will be limited."

Dr. Neil Theise, a stem cell researcher at New York University Medical Center, warned, "If this remains the decision for the long term, I think it could significantly inhibit our ability to get the sort of therapies that we're hoping for."

Dr. Douglas Melton, chairman of the cellular and molecular biology department at Harvard University, said Thursday that he had not been aware of as many stem cell lines as the president said existed.

"The 60 cell lines is news to me," Melton said. "I presume that many of them must have been derived by private institutes or companies, and whether they will be made available to (the National Institutes of Health) for federally funded researchers without restriction is an important question to ask."

Federal funds cannot be used to pay for creating stem cell lines because U.S. law bars funding research that harms a human embryo. The lines are thus largely in private hands, and many experts had believed that far fewer than 60 existed, with estimates ranging from fewer than a dozen to 30.

PIONEER IS "VERY PLEASED"

Dr. James Thomson, the University of Wisconsin researcher who isolated the first human stem cells in 1998, said in a statement Thursday: "I am very pleased that President Bush made a decision that will allow human embryonic stem cell research to go forward. The proposed compromise will slow the research, but the compromise is better than halting the research entirely."

Paralyzed actor Christopher Reeve, head of the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, which supports research seeking a cure for paralysis, said in an interview, "I'm very pleased that it wasn't a complete no, but I really think we must go further."

John Rogers, education and advocacy director for the Parkinson's Action Network, said, "While we have concerns about the number of lines, we're very pleased that the president has announced that we're moving forward with the research, and we think it gives hope to millions of Americans."

Stem cells are versatile primitive cells with the ability to transform themselves into many other types of cells, such as those found in the brain, heart, bones, muscles and skin. Embryonic stem cells have been able to become virtually any cell type in the body, while so-called adult stem cells, harbored in the bodies of adults and children, have shown more limitations.

Scientists hope to harness the cells' transformational powers to devise revolutionary treatments for a variety of diseases, using stem cells to regenerate healthy tissue to replace tissue damaged by disease or injury.

They hope to use the technique against juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, stroke, heart attack, multiple sclerosis, severe burns, spinal cord injuries and other conditions.

Copyright © 1999 Reuters Limited.

Embryonic stem cells may be the new kids on the block, but their promising attributes are attracting much attention.

http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/amnews/pick_01/hlsb0813.htm

Aug. 13, 2001
By Susan J. Landers, AMNews staff.

Washington -- Regardless of whether stem-cell research moves forward with embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells, with public or private funding, recent results have sparked enough enthusiasm, controversy and debate to carry the field forward for a long time.

If stem cells live up to their promise, they could dramatically improve physicians' odds of defeating a long list of serious conditions that include diabetes, Parkinson's disease, end-stage kidney disease, liver failure, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury and stroke.

But, the promise of embryonic stem cells is not only a long way from being realized, it is also tempered by problematic ethical issues.

Meanwhile, the difficulties of working with adult stem cells has dimmed researchers' zeal.

Still, the potential of stem-cell research can be tantalizing.

"Over 3,000 people die every day in the United States from diseases that may someday be treatable as a result of stem-cell research," according to a report by the Progressive Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C.,-based think tank.

While much of the recent interest has been sparked by embryonic stem cells, which were first isolated from embryos only three years ago, the momentum for research on adult stem cells, which has been conducted for many years, has waned a bit.

Much remains unknown. "So far, adult stem cells have proven to be very different from embryonic stem cells," ventures Tony Mazzaschi, associate vice president for research at the American Assn. of Medical Colleges. He notes that the AAMC supports research on both types of stem cells. The AMA also strongly supports all stem-cell research, as do numerous other medical groups.

It isn't hard to find research success stories.

Dramatic findings released in mid-July by Johns Hopkins University researcher John Gearhart, MD, offered videotaped proof that previously paralyzed mice and rats regained some ability to use their legs after being injected with embryonic stem cells.

At about the same time, researchers in London revealed that they had coaxed adult stem cells found in bone marrow to develop as kidney cells.

The National Institutes of Health released a report on July 18 that also cites the promise of both types of stem-cell research.

All stem cells, whether derived from adults, embryos or fetuses, can, under certain conditions, reproduce themselves for long periods of time. They can also give rise to specialized cells that make up the tissues and organs of the body.

Where the similarities end
Embryonic stem cells have certain attributes that, so far at least, have not been found in adult stem cells. For one thing, embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, whereas adult stem cells are believed to have a more limited range.

In addition, "As far as we know, [embryonic stem cells] can replace themselves forever, unlike adult stem cells," said James Thompson, PhD, a developmental biologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and one of the first two scientists to isolate stem cells from human embryos. Dr. Thompson spoke at a National Academies of Science workshop in June.

Dr. Thompson derives embryonic stem cells from four- to five-day-old embryos called blastocysts, which are donated by couples undergoing in vitro fertilization. The embryos, which are destroyed in the process of extracting stem cells, are said to be extras and destined to be destroyed in any case.

There appear to be only two sources for human pluripotent stem cells: those isolated and cultured from early human embryos and those cultured from fetal tissue destined to be part of the gonads.

Dr. Gearhart, who takes honors with Dr. Thompson as the other researcher to have isolated human embryonic stem cells, uses the second approach to develop his stem cells, an approach that, so far, seems to have escaped controversy.

However, the destruction of the early stage embryos has sparked a strong debate over whether federal funding should support such research. President George W. Bush was still struggling with the issue at press time.

Congress is also divided on the issue.

But adult stem cells are free of the current debate. And those that oppose the destruction of the blastocyst in order to obtain embryonic stem cells gladly point to the successes of adult stem-cell research and the need to continue.

To date, adult stem cells have been identified in brain, bone marrow, peripheral blood, blood vessels, skeletal muscle, epithelia of the skin and digestive system, cornea, dental pulp of the tooth, retina, liver and pancreas.

Although they are found in many sites, they are rare and difficult to identify, isolate and purify, notes the NIH report.

But David Stevens, MD, executive director of the Christian Medical Assn. and an opponent of embryonic stem-cell research, believes the promise of adult stem-cell research is being unfairly overlooked.

"Adult stem cells have been used in rebuilding ears, tracheas in humans, and even have been used to regenerate heart tissue in mice," he said.

As Dr. Stevens sees the debate, "If we have two paths of promising research and one has ethical issues and the other does not, which one should we pursue? It seems to me we should pursue the one without the ethical problems."

He also points out potential difficulties with embryonic stem cells. "The biggest benefit of embryonic stem cells is that they can differentiate into so many different types of cells. But that's their biggest problem, too. How do you direct them?"

A federal ban on research would mean the NIH, the lead supporter of biomedical research, and an agency currently enjoying an increased funding level, would be prohibited from supporting embryonic stem-cell research. Privately funded research could continue, but outside the sphere of NIH guidelines, leading some to fear that research standards would suffer.

The funding debate has dragged on for many months now. In January, the AMA joined with more than 100 other medical groups in urging the president to release funding. The groups said, "Given the great hope that stem-cell research provides to those who are suffering or dying from devastating illnesses, we urge you to allow this research to move forward with federal support."

http://www.sltrib.com/08092001/utah/120844.htm

Thursday, August 9, 2001
BY JIM WOOLF
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

Debate in the U.S. Senate over federal funding of embryonic stem cell research reveals a deep divide in personal religious beliefs and the theology of when life begins.

The five senators who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints all have come out in favor of spending federal money to study whether cells taken from embryos in the first stages of development can be used to cure such problems as heart disease, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer and diabetes.

The Mormon senators' stand is controversial because the collection of these cells would require the destruction of excess embryos produced at fertility clinics.

Since most of the Mormon senators strongly oppose abortion in all but a few circumstances, their decision underscores that LDS theology is unclear on whether an embryo created in the laboratory through in vitro fertilization is a living being.

The senators are leaning toward -- and sometimes coming right out and saying -- that these embryos are not yet truly alive.

"While I understand that many in the pro-life community will disagree with me, I believe that human life begins in the womb, not a petri dish or refrigerator," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said at a Senate hearing last month.

That position has separated the Mormons from traditional conservative allies in the Senate who consider the destruction of an embryo no different from aborting a developing fetus. By aligning with their more liberal colleagues, the Mormon senators have joined a coalition of two-thirds of the Senate who now support federal funding for the research -- enough to override a potential presidential veto.

The Mormon senators "have helped move the debate away from right-to-life absolutism without sacrificing pro-life theology. The LDS Church, not the Vatican, is playing the pivotal role in the struggle over stem cells," according to an analysis by Drew Clark in the Aug. 2 edition of Slate Magazine.

Central to the Senate debate is the question of when life begins.

The LDS Church has been clear about its opposition to abortion in all but rare cases "involving pregnancy by incest or rape; when the life or health of the woman is adjudged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy; or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth."

No Guidance: But Mormon leaders have provided no guidance on exactly when life begins.

"There is no direct revelation upon the subject of when the spirit enters the body," church spokesman Dale Bills said this week.

Mormon theology holds that people existed as "spirit children" of God prior to receiving an earthly body. Thus, there is some point where the spirit unites with the physical body to create life.

In the church's scriptural Doctrine & Covenants, there is a passage that reads: "And the spirit and the body are the soul of man."

Church leaders have not said whether this joining of spirit and body occurs at conception or sometime later in the development of the fetus.

On the issue of embryonic stem cell research, LDS Church leaders issued a statement last month saying they had no position but added the idea "merits cautious scrutiny."

That left the Mormon senators free to explore their personal beliefs on the issue, and to balance the possible health benefits of the research against the moral quandary of destroying embryos.

Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., a Mormon, offered his view that laboratory-produced embryos are no more than the "dust of the earth" that lack the spark of life until they are implanted in the mother's womb.

"They are essential to life, but standing alone, will never constitute life," Smith said at a Senate hearing. "A stem cell in a petri dish or frozen in a refrigerator will never, even in 100 years, become more than stem cells. They lack the breath of life. I believe that life begins in a mother's womb, not in a scientist's laboratory."

The other Mormon senators supporting the research are: Bob Bennett, R-Utah; Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, and Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Collision Course: Such views clash head-on with the beliefs of Catholics and many Jews. Owen Cummings, who tutors new deacons for the Utah diocese of the Catholic Church, said the church's position on this issue has been consistent since at least the 1300s.

"Life begins when life begins, and that is at the moment when an ovum is fertilized with a sperm," said Cummings. "We are not left with the concept that something is there which might become a person, but a person is there in the process of becoming."

Catholics have no objection to research using stem cells collected from the placenta, umbilical cord or from adults, Cummings said, but the embryo is "sacred" and must not be destroyed.

Many Jews also believe life begins when the egg is fertilized, said J. David Bleich, a rabbi and professor of Jewish law and ethics at Yeshiva University in New York City.

Bleich acknowledged there is debate among Jewish scholars over whether the soul enters the embryo at the moment of fertilization or 40 days later.

"If it is 40 days, no one can object if you kill [the embryo] for a good purpose," he said. "But the weight of authority, I contend, is that all of this happens at the moment of conception, in which case you have a problem."

The rabbi said the federal government should not finance work in which embryos are destroyed to collect stem cells.

"The government has no business funding things that are morally offensive to huge sectors of society," he said.

But if stem cells are collected through privately funded work from excess embryos at fertility clinics, he said their use should be allowed in government-funded research.

"If you have a homicide victim and want to salvage organs, no one is going to be opposed," the rabbi said. "Does that mean I've condoned the act of homicide? No."

The excess embryos awaiting destruction are like those homicide victims, he said. He does not condone their destruction and contends the federal government should not support it. But since they are going to be destroyed anyway, Bleich said federal funding should be available to study the stem cells that are "harvested."

In a recent letter to the secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, Hatch said that he understands and respects those who believe that destruction of excess embryos is akin to abortion. But he disagrees.

"To me, a frozen embryo is more akin to a frozen unfertilized egg or frozen sperm than to a fetus naturally developing in the body of a mother," he wrote. "In the case of in vitro fertilization, extraordinary human action is required to initiate a successful pregnancy while in the case of an elective abortion an intentional human act is required to terminate pregnancy. These are polar opposites."

jwoolf@sltrib.com

© Copyright 2001, The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/sns-stemcells-nih.story

August 10, 2001
By Bob LaMendola
Sun-Sentinel

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- For stem-cell scientists, President Bush just popped the lid off of a $17 billion treasure chest that had been locked to them.

The president's approval of limited funding for stem-cell research will unleash scores of proposals to the nation's largest single source of medical research, the huge grants budget of the National Institutes of Health, scientists said on Thursday.

Research teams have countless ideas on how stem cells can be manipulated to treat a list of ills: Diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, stroke, heart attacks, multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's disease, bone marrow disorders, failed organs and spinal cord injuries. Stem cells may regrow the skin of burn victims and replace tissues lost in cancer treatment.

"This will push us forward on many, many fronts," said W. Dalton Dietrich, scientific director of the Miami Project to Cure Paralysis, who oversees several stem-cell projects.

"We would like to say that one day we'll be able to take these cells, put them in a petri dish with some chemical growth factors and be able to control what they turn into," he said.

On the flip side, it may turn out that the body rejects the implanted stem cells. Or, the new cells could grow too fast and create tumors.

The cells are derived from five- to 10-day-old embryos made in fertility labs to implant in prospective mothers. Privately funded research currently takes unused embryos, which are routinely discarded, for study. Once created, the tiny balls of cells divide almost indefinitely so labs have a big supply.

Stem cells were first isolated in 1998, but a 1995 law banned federal funding for any research that "destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk" any human fetus, no matter how microscopic.

In his compromise decision, Bush imposed two key restrictions. First, all stem cells used for research must come from embryos originally created for fertility treatment. Second, researchers must use stem cell lines cultured from 60 embryos that already have been killed by privately funded researchers.

"I'm quite happy. That would be acceptable to any reasonable researcher," said Dr. Luca Inverardi, co-director of the cell transplant center at the University of Miami's Diabetes Research Institute.

The NIH is expected to require labs that presently have the stem cells to either sell or share them with other researchers, possibly as a condition of their federal funding, Inverardi said.

Inverardi's lab -- now growing to five scientists -- has been studying how to convert mouse stem cells into replacements for faulty pancreas tissues that cause diabetes. Three teams have succeeded in doing so, one in Israel using human cells.

With NIH dollars available, Inverardi anticipates landing as much as $4 million over the next 10 years to work on human stem cells.

The spinal cord lab that Dietrich oversees also has been studying mouse cells, and will go after NIH grants to begin work on human cells.

The goal: Creating new nerves that could grow across broken spinal cords to eliminate paralysis. Groups elsewhere are trying this in humans using private funds, he said. Harvard doctors reported they "cured" Parkinson's in rats.

Signs of progress abound. An Israeli team coaxed embryo stem cells to grow into heart muscle. A privately funded team created nerve cells that repaired the brains of monkey fetuses.

Last year, the NIH gave $256 million to researchers studying adult cells, a non-controversial area using tissue derived from patients.

After Bush's action, it's unclear how big a slice of the NIH's $17 billion budget would go for embryo stem-cell work. NIH scientists award grants to studies they deem to be the most promising, regardless of subject matter, spokesman Don Ralbovsky said. Competition is fierce, and the evaluations will be deliberate.

"The first checks would not be cut until early in the new year," Ralbovsky said.

The prospect of big dollars for stem-cell projects excited advocacy groups for diseases that stand to benefit from the research.

"We see lots of promise," said Jerry Franz, a spokesman for the American Diabetes Association. "People with diabetes are often promised more than what actually is delivered. But it offers hope and we want to be supportive of offering hope."

"I'm no scientist," said Alison Landes of Boca Raton, Fla., who started the group Cure Parkinson's Inc. after her sister was diagnosed with the incurable brain disorder. "It seems too promising to turn away. Maybe people wouldn't have to take drugs, which don't work forever and are not a cure."

Researchers and disease groups had feared that Bush would continue the ban on federal funds for stem-cell work, because of pressure from those with ethical or religious objections to using embryos.

A rejection likely would have driven some of the limited number of U.S. embryo researchers to other countries that support it, Inverardi said.

U.S. drugmakers and biotechnology firms, which generally supported Bush, favored the federal funding.
 

Copyright © 2001, South Florida Sun-Sentinel 

She joins state lawmakers who plan bill placing limits on study

http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/aug01/embryo10080901a.asp

Last Updated: Aug. 9, 2001
By RICHARD P. JONES
of the Journal Sentinel staff

Madison - Though stem cell research might hold a cure for her, Mary Lynn Bielinski of Brookfield said Thursday she would rather endure multiple sclerosis than live, knowing the cure involved destruction of embryos.

Seated in a wheelchair during a Capitol news conference, Bielinski voiced support for a bill to prohibit the creation and destruction of embryonic cells for research. She said she realized such research one day might enable multiple sclerosis sufferers like her to walk again.

"But if babies are going to be lost in the process, no thank you, I'd rather just stay the way I am," Bielinski said.

"I'm totally against any kind of stem cell research that would take these little - I call them babies," she said. "After all, a seed is going to grow into a mighty oak, just as these embryos, if allowed to grow, will become babies."

Bielinski, 61, who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1979, said that when people suffer a miscarriage, they grieve over the loss of their child.

"And I would grieve terribly over the loss of these babies if this stem cell research is allowed to continue," she said.

Bielinski joined Rep. Steve Freese (R-Dodgeville) and Barbara Lyons of Wisconsin Right to Life at the news conference to announce the legislation.

Freese said the bill he and Sen. Bob Welch (R-Redgranite) would introduce within a week was more comprehensive than the stem cell research ban proposed by Assembly Republicans during budget negotiations but later rejected.

Freese said the bill would allow research on adult stem cells, but not cells taken from embryos 6 to 8 days old. The University of Wisconsin-Madison has been the leading research institution on embryonic stem cells. Freese said UW researchers should work on adult stem cells, not embryonic cells.

Freese said the bill would make the intentional destruction of a living human embryo a crime. Anyone providing researchers a human embryo, knowing it would be destroyed, also could be prosecuted, he said.

The legislation also would prohibit cloning. Finally, it would call for a legislative council study on ways to regulate infertility clinics and the production of embryos, and to facilitate adoption of spare embryos.

In an opening statement, Freese talked about the medical experiments the Nazis conducted during the Holocaust and the United States' Tuskegee experiment, in which the U.S. Public Health Service withheld penicillin and watched poor, uneducated African-American men die of syphilis.

In drawing the comparisons, Freese said later, he was only attempting to illustrate a need to understand the consequences of research and have controls in place.

Freese said 11 other states, including Minnesota and Michigan, prohibit experiments on human embryos outside a woman's body. He acknowledged the bill would face strong opposition in the Senate, controlled by Democrats. UW officials also oppose the measure.

Another opponent, Rep. Sheldon Wasserman (D-Milwaukee), said embryonic stem cells hold the most promise for cures and that prohibiting such research would prolong suffering and cost lives.

"I think we have to protect people who are dying and suffering from these horrible diseases. Don't they have a voice?" said Wasserman, a practicing physician.

If people want no part of such research because their religious convictions, that is their choice to make, Wasserman said. But he said they should not deny others the benefits of such research.

"Don't impose your value system that says my kids can't get healthy, my kids won't be cured, my wife won't be spared from breast cancer," Wasserman said.

Answering questions after speaking at the annual Governor's Forum Luncheon in Milwaukee on Thursday, Gov. Scott McCallum said he had not seen the bill and wasn't familiar with its language.

But he added that he supports "steps necessary to support an ethical course in stem cell research." If the finished bill contains such a provision, "it may be signed," he said.
 

Avrum D. Lank of the Journal Sentinel staff, reporting from Milwaukee, contributed to this report.

Appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Aug. 10, 2001.

© Copyright 2001, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Transcript of President Bush's Speech to Nation

C R A W F O R D, Texas, Aug. 9 - Following is a transcript of President Bush's first nationally televised address to the nation. In his speech, Bush announces his support for very limited federal funding of research using stem cells derived from human embryos.

Good evening. I appreciate you giving me a few minutes of your time tonight so I can discuss with you a complex and difficult issue, an issue that is one of the most profound of our time.

The issue of research involving stem cells derived from human embryos is increasingly the subject of a national debate and dinner table discussions. The issue is confronted every day in laboratories as scientists ponder the ethical ramifications of their work. It is agonized over by parents and many couples as they try to have children or to save children already born. The issue is debated within the church, with people of different faiths, even many of the same faith, coming to different conclusions.

Many people are finding that the more they know about stem-cell research, the less certain they are about the right ethical and moral conclusions.

My administration must decide whether to allow federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos.

A large number of these embryos already exist. They are the product of a process called in-vitro fertilization which helps so many couples conceive children. When doctors match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are implanted in the mother.

Once a couple successfully has children, or if they are unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories. Some will not survive during long storage, others are destroyed. A number have been donated to science and used to create privately funded stem cell lines. And a few have been implanted in an adoptive mother and born and are today healthy children.

Based on preliminary work that has been privately funded, scientists believe further research using stem cells offers great promise that could help improve the lives of those who suffer from many terrible diseases, from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's, from Parkinson's to spinal cord injuries. And while scientists admit they are not yet certain, they believe stem cells derived from embryos have unique potential.

You should also know that stem cells can be derived from sources other than embryos: from adult cells, from umbilical cords that are discarded after babies are born, from human placentas. And many scientists feel research on these types of stem cells is also promising. Many patients suffering from a range of diseases are already being helped with treatments developed from adult stem cells.

However, most scientists, at least today, believe that research on embryonic stem cells offers the most promise because these cells have the potential to develop in all of the tissues in the body.

Scientists further believe that rapid progress in this research will come only with federal funds. Federal dollars help attract the best and brightest scientists. They ensure new discoveries are widely shared at the largest number of research facilities, and that the research is directed toward the greatest public good.

The United States has a long and proud record of leading the world toward advances in science and medicine that improve human life, and the United States has a long and proud record of upholding the highest standards of ethics as we expand the limits of science and knowledge.

Research on embryonic stem cells raises profound ethical questions, because extracting the stem cell destroys the embryo, and thus destroys its potential for life.

Like a snowflake, each of these embryos is unique, with the unique genetic potential of an individual human being.

As I thought through this issue I kept returning to two fundamental questions. First, are these frozen embryos human life and therefore something precious to be protected? And second, if they're going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn't they be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives?

I've asked those questions and others of scientists, scholars, bio-ethicists, religious leaders, doctors, researchers, members of Congress, my Cabinet and my friends. I have read heartfelt letters from many Americans. I have given this issue a great deal of thought, prayer, and considerable reflection, and I have found widespread disagreement.

On the first issue, are these embryos human life? Well, one researcher told me he believes this five-day-old cluster of cells is not an embryo, not yet an individual but a pre-embryo. He argued that it has the potential for life, but it is not a life because it cannot develop on its own.

An ethicist dismissed that as a callous attempt at rationalization. "Make no mistake," he told me, "that cluster of cells is the same way you and I, and all the rest of us, started our lives. One goes with a heavy heart if we use these," he said, "because we are dealing with the seeds of the next generation."

And to the other crucial question - If these are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for good purpose? - I also found different answers.

Many are these embryos are byproducts of a process that helps create life and we should allow couples to donate them to science so they can be used for good purpose instead of wasting their potential.

Others will argue there is no such thing as excess life and the fact that a living being is going to die does not justify experimenting on it or exploiting it as a natural resource.

At its core, this issue forces us to confront fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science. It lives at a difficult moral intersection, juxtaposing the need to protect life in all its phases with the prospect of saving and improving life in all its stages.

As the discoveries of modern science create tremendous hope, they also lay vast ethical mine fields.

As the genius of science extends the horizons of what we can do, we increasingly confront complex questions about what we should do. We have arrived at that brave new world that seemed so distant in 1932 when Alduous Huxley wrote about human beings created in test tubes in what he called a hatchery.

In recent weeks, we learned that scientists have created human embryos in test tubes solely to experiment on them. This is deeply troubling and a warning sign that should prompt all of us to think through these issues very carefully.

Embryonic stem-cell research is at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards. The initial stem-cell researcher was at first reluctant to begin his research, fearing it might be used for human cloning. Scientists have already cloned a sheep. Researchers are telling us the next step could be to clone human beings to create individual designer stem cells, essentially to grow another you, to be available in case you need another heart or lung or liver.

I strongly oppose human cloning, as do most Americans. We recoil at the idea of growing human beings for spare body parts or creating life for our convenience.
 
And while we must devote enormous energy to conquering disease, it is equally important that we pay attention to the moral concerns raised by the new frontier of human embryo stem cell research. Even the most noble ends do not justify any means.

My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs. I'm a strong supporter of science and technology, and believe they have the potential for incredible good - to improve lives, to save life, to conquer disease. Research offers hope that millions of our loved ones may be cured of a disease and rid of their suffering. I have friends whose children suffer from juvenile diabetes. Nancy Reagan has written me about President Reagan's struggle with Alzheimer's. My own family has confronted the tragedy of childhood leukemia. And like all Americans, I have great hope for cures.

I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your president I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world.

And while we're all hopeful about the potential of this research, no one can be certain that the science will live up to the hope it has generated.

Eight years ago, scientists believed fetal tissue research offered great hope for cures and treatments, yet the progress to date has not lived up to its initial expectations. Embryonic stem-cell research offers both great promise and great peril, so I have decided we must proceed with great care.

As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research.

I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life-and- death decision has already been made.

Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem-cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.

I also believe that great scientific progress can be made through aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord, placenta, adult and animal stem cells, which do not involve the same moral dilemma. This year your government will spent $250 million on this important research.

I will also name a president's council to monitor stem-cell research, to recommend appropriate guidelines and regulations and to consider all of the medical and ethical ramifications of bio-medical innovation.

This council will consist of leading scientists, doctors, ethicists, lawyers, theologians and others, and will be chaired by Dr. Leon Cass, a leading bio-medical ethicist from the University of Chicago.

This council will keep us apprised of new developments and give our nation a forum to continue to discuss and evaluate these important issues.

As we go forward, I hope we will always be guided by both intellect and heart, by both our capabilities and our conscience.

I have made this decision with great care, and I pray it is the right one.

Thank you for listening. Good night, and God bless America.