For those that missed this post by Charlote Mancuso on 2-11-2000.  How does
this letter support Joan Samuelson's position on John McCain's views on stem
cell research?  Noone seems to want to try to answer this contradcition.

Greg
47/35/35

Looks like John McCain has caved:
This is what I was afraid of; didn't he say even recently that he was for
stem cells? Now McCain signs a letter under the political
pressure from Trent Lott, who was the one who scuttled the stem cell wording
from the Senate's HHS appropriations Bill for FY2000.


DEBATE OVER FETAL TISSUE RESEARCH HEATS UP AGAIN AS COMMENTS ON PROPOSED
STEM CELL RESEARCH GUIDELINES ENCOMPASS USING EMBRYOS AND FETAL TISSUE AS
SOURCES

Proponents of stem cell research may soon find themselves fighting a
two-front battle: as opponents ratchet up their efforts to block funding
for experiments with embryonic cells, some of these same forces are working
to at least discourage research with another stem cell source--fetal tissue.

On the human embryo front, last week, Sen. Pete Domenici, R-NM, a strong
supporter of medical research and chair of the Senate Budget Committee,
Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, presidential candidate and chair of the Senate
Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, and Senate Majority Leader
Trent Lott, R-MS, were among 20 Senators who signed a letter to the
National Institutes of Health opposing the agency's plan to fund
experiments with stem cells derived from human embryos. Last year, a
similar effort attracted the signatures of only seven Senators.

The letter states that "despite their title," guidelines proposed by NIH
for such work "do not regulate stem cell research."

"Rather, they regulate the means by which researchers may obtain and
destroy live human embryos in order to receive federal funds for subsequent
research," the Senators claim. "Clearly, the destruction of human embryos
is an integral part of the contemplated research, in violation of the law."

The Senators were referring to a federal law that forbids taxpayer funds
from being used for experiments that result in the destruction of a human
embryo.

Also signing the letter were Senators Sam Brownback, R-KS, Don Nickles,
R-OK, George Voinovich, R-OH, John Ashcroft, R-MO, Jeff Sessions, R-AL,
Jesse Helms, R-NC, Chuck Hagel, R-NE, Michael Enzi, R-WY, Rick Santorum,
R-PA, Mike DeWine, R-OH, Kit Bond, R-MO, Bob Smith, R-NH, Tim Hutchinson,
R-AR, Rod Grams, R-MN, Conrad Burns, R-MT, Jon Kyl, R-AZ, and Jim Bunning,
R-KY.

NIH officials insist their plan stays within the confines of the current
ban on federal support for embryo research since agency funds could be
spent only on work with stem cells, not embryos. The language in the
guidelines that addresses the embryos themselves is intended by NIH to
ensure their grantees acquire only stem cells from what the agency
considers to be legitimate sources.

For example, the proposed guidelines require that stem cells used by
NIH-funded investigators must be derived from embryos left over from an
infertility treatment, are no longer needed for a pregnancy, and are
obtained through an informed consent process.

Meanwhile, the NIH guidelines also include requirements for grantees who
plan to work with fetal tissue as their stem cell source. But this aspect
of the guidelines has gotten comparatively little attention, mainly
because, unlike embryos, the 1993 NIH Revitalization Act explicitly allows
NIH grantees to conduct research with fetal tissue, as long as the work
adheres to certain standards.

But now a group of lawmakers opposed to fetal tissue research has convinced
Rep. Tom Bliley, R-VA, the chair of the House Commerce Committee, to hold a
hearing into what they claim are unsavory and potentially illegal practices
by certain private firms that obtain fetal tissue from abortion clinics and
sell it to researchers.

Lawmakers pushing for the hearings say what they simply want to know is
whether any providers of fetal tissue have violated a component of the law
forbidding them from seeking to profit on the transaction. The law allows
that providers can recover the costs only, for example, of obtaining,
transporting and preserving the material.

Last November, the House approved a resolution (H.Res. 350) brought by,
among others, Reps. Thomas Tancredo, R-CO, and Chris Smith, R-NJ--both
staunch opponents of fetal tissue research--which claimed private companies
engaging in what Smith and Tancredo refer to as "trafficking in baby body
parts" were circumventing the fetal tissue law's prohibition against
seeking excessive payments for their efforts. The resolution demands that
Congress investigate.

During the debate, Rep. Nita Lowey, D-NY, pointed out that in 1997 the
General Accounting Office "investigated compliance with the detailed
federal regulations governing this research and the GAO found no evidence
of wrongdoing or abuse." She also noted that while NIH is charged with
overseeing compliance with the fetal tissue research law, "no member of
Congress has called the NIH or requested in writing any investigation."

What some proponents of fetal tissue research--which is viewed by
scientists as having the potential to produce new therapies for victims of
Alzheimer's and Parkinson's--fear is that the hearings could have a
chilling effect. An official with the Parkinson's Action Network said the
organization believes if there are, in fact, "bad actors" they should be
exposed, but it does not want the congressional action to end up
discouraging "what is currently a lawful practice."

According to a source skeptical of the Republican allegations, Democratic
staff working in preparation for Bliley's hearings believe they will be
able to debunk most of the more sensational aspects of the charges against
tissue providers. But this source said the concern is that the hearing will
make scientists worry that, even if they carefully follow the strictest of
standards, they still could be subjected to harassment. The other concern,
this person said, is that legitimate tissue providers--particularly
nonprofits--will decide that the issue is too controversial and will stop
supplying researchers.

However, there is some indication that, in the Senate at least, Congress
may be skeptical of placing new restrictions on researchers who work with
fetal tissue. Last October, Sen. Bob Smith, R-NH, proposed an amendment
(S.AMDT.2324) to legislation banning partial birth abortions that would
have required scientists to file a range of information with the government
about the origin of fetal tissue used in their research. The reports were
to include, among other things, the "names, addresses and telephone
numbers" of any "entity" involved in procuring the tissue, the abortion
procedure involved and the amount of money paid for the tissue. The
amendment was rejected 51-46.

The potential of fetal tissue research to engender controversy was
demonstrated late last year in Nebraska, when anti-abortion groups claimed
researchers at the University of Nebraska were conducting stem cell
research with fetal tissue obtained from a local abortion doctor without
proper review. According to a recent article in Science magazine, the
charges prompted Nebraska Governor Mike Johanns and other state officials
to demand that the university halt the work.

The university has refused, claiming the experiments had complied with
federal law and had been cleared by a special panel convened by the
school's Institutional Review Board.  Science quoted a representative from
the Washington-based Coalition for Traditional Values, a group opposed to
fetal tissue research, claiming that the fight will move beyond Nebraska.

Fetal tissue research already is being used as a wedge issue in the 2000
presidential campaign. The National Right to Life Committee is attacking
John McCain for his vote in favor of fetal tissue research, claiming it's
an indication that he is not sufficiently pro-life. The issue has been
raised several times in the past two weeks during McCain's campaign
appearances in South Carolina.

McCain said he originally voted to oppose fetal tissue research but
switched after watching his friend and fellow Arizonan Morris Udall suffer
from Parkinson's.

It was the potential to help people like Udall that galvanized the Senate
to overwhelmingly support fetal issue research. Proponents of research with
embryonic stem cells hope that people like paralysis victim Christopher
Reeve can have a similar impact on their efforts, given the potential stem
cells could have to relieve the suffering of spinal injury. Reeve is
scheduled to testify February 22 at a hearing on stem cells convened by the
Senate Appropriations Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and
Related Agencies subcommittee.

Television and movie star Michael J. Fox--who suffers from
Parkinson's--also had been invited to the hearing but will be unable to
attend because of a work commitment.

--Matthew Davis

______________________________________________________________
Compiled by Washington Fax: an Information Service of F-D-C Reports, Inc.
Managing Editor: Shirley Haley
Phone: 508.999.6097  Fax: 508.994.9366