At 08:33 PM 10/06/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>Marjorie , you are very special!!
>
>         Of all the information and arguments that have been brought forth in
>the past few days in regard to stem cells, this sheds the most authoritative
>light on the subject. I am grateful for the response and tone of most of
>the participants, As you can surmise from my age (which is 70) . I really do
>not expect to have much more time to wait for the cure.
>
>          As an old friend who is just a librarian,  Would you help me
>understand the situation more fully. I have been wondering just how many
>researchers are now using infant stem cells in their research ,and what
>progress is being made!!
>
>         Bill Olson,70 now, onset 1983,
>----- Original Message -----
Hi Bill,
Thanks for the praise, this is one day I really need it too!
I'm going to let a Doctor, a Researcher from MIT answer your questions.
  Its rather long, so I may have to split it ,if the LISTSERV sends it back.

Testimony of Richard O. Hynes, Ph.D.
President, American Society for Cell Biology
To the Labor, Health & Human Services and
Education Subcommittee
of the
Appropriations Committee
United States Senate
September 14, 2000
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: I am Richard Hynes, Professor
of Biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where I am also an
investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Director of the
Center for Cancer Research. I am a member of the US National Academy of
Sciences and of the Institute of Medicine. I am here today as President of
the American Society for Cell Biology. The Society represents 10,000 basic
biomedical researchers, most of whom work in our Nation's leading research
universities and institutes. It is my great pleasure to appear before you
to explain why our organization feels that it is so important that the full
potential of human embryonic stem cell research be realized.
On behalf of the American Society for Cell Biology, I wish first to extend
my deepest appreciation to you, Chairman Specter, to Ranking Member Harkin
and to the members of the Subcommittee for the visionary and courageous
commitment you have made through your investment in biomedical research at
the NIH. We are extremely grateful that you have embraced the goal of
doubling the NIH budget over five years and that we are halfway towards
reaching that goal. This funding is vitally important to allow our nation's
scientists and clinicians to exploit the tremendous opportunities offered
by the current revolution in biomedical research to enhance the health of
the American public.
We believe deeply that this investment in biomedical research will be most
effectively used if embryonic stem cell research is included among the
innovative methods used to develop treatments and preventions for disease.
We understand the ethical concerns that some have raised about this
research but we respectfully submit that appropriately regulated research
on human embryonic stem cells can be conducted while taking into account
those concerns. The Guidelines recently released by the National Institutes
of Health enable federally funded scientists to conduct research using
pluripotent human embryonic stem cell lines. We believe that this research
will undoubtedly lead to new ways to treat disease and disability.
Embryonic stem cells will allow the creation of new, healthy tissue to
replace damaged or dead tissue, such as bone marrow for the treatment of
cancers, sickle cell anemia and thalassemis; pancreatic cells for the
treatment of diabetes, and neuronal cells for the treatment of Parkinson's
disease, Alzheimer's and various brain and spinal cord injuries and
disorders. The prospects offered by this research are analogous to, but
will likely far surpass, the benefits realized by organ transplantation
over recent decades.
We do not stand alone in our determination that this invaluable research
must go forward. Attached to my testimony is a statement signed by 70
American organizations, including the American Medical Association, the
Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research, the Juvenile Diabetes
Foundation International, the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, the
American Association for Cancer Research, and the Federation of American
Societies of Experimental Biology which I respectfully request be submitted
for the record.
I also want to reiterate the support of the American Society for Cell
Biology for S.2015, "The Stem Cell Research Act of 2000" which you have
introduced, that would allow federally-funded scientists not only to use,
but also to derive embryonic stem cell lines for research purposes.
Some have argued that human embryonic stem cell research is "illegal,
unnecessary and immoral." We respectfully disagree on all counts. On the
contrary, we believe that it would be immoral not to pursue this great
opportunity to improve the quality of human life.
First, the charge that the NIH has acted illegally is unfounded. As you
well know, the Labor, Health & Human Services and Education Appropriations
bills have restricted embryo research for the last several years, but these
bills are silent on the use of embryonic stem cells. These cells are not
embryos and they cannot independently develop into embryos. The NIH
Guidelines prohibit the use of NIH funds to create embryos for experimental
purposes and they set specific criteria governing the sources from which
embryonic stem cells can be obtained. These guidelines require the informed
consent of the donors, preclude any possible direct benefit to such donors,
and prohibit the creation of embryos for research purposes. Cells used for
research must be derived solely from embryos generated for fertility
treatments and in excess of clinical need. Such embryos would otherwise be
discarded. A critical element of the NIH Guidelines is that the federal
government will oversee the use of embryonic stem cells. Heretofore, this
valuable resource was available exclusively to private and commercial
entities, which were not accountable to the public. By funding human
embryonic stem cell research, the federal government may exercise control
over standards for use of stem cells. This provision will facilitate open
debate and encourage public input into the appropriate uses of this
important scientific opportunity.
Second, critics argue that embryonic stem cell research is unnecessary
because stem cells derived from adult tissues may be used with equal
effectiveness. I regret that this claim is ill-informed and misleading.
Scientists are indeed guardedly encouraged by recent reports of plasticity
of some adult stem cells, but this line of research is in its very early
stages and far from definitive. We know little about the availability of
adult stem cells, their differentiation, or their potential for prolonged
maintenance outside the body. While we strongly support continued research
on adult stem cells, it is far too early to conclude that they will be as
effective in treating and preventing disease as embryonic stem cells seem
certain to be. If embryonic stem cell research were to be halted based on
that hope, it is entirely possible that years would pass before scientists
determine whether or not adult stem cells are of equivalent value. During
those years embryonic stem cell research can an should be pursued in
parallel, to the great benefit of many of our fellow citizens. This
possibility was emphasized in a letter to Chairman Specter in May from some
of this Nation's leading researchers investigating adult stem cells who
stated: "We are dismayed that our research is being used as a justification
to hinder or prohibit research with embryonic stem cells. It is simply
incorrect to use the future promise of adult stem cell research as an
argument that embryonic stem cell research is not critical and essential."
Again, I respectfully request that you submit their letters for the record.
Finally, given these facts, we believe it would be immoral not to pursue
embryonic stem cell research, within the appropriate regulatory oversight
mandated by the NIH Guidelines, because this research has enormous
potential to save human lives and to mitigate human suffering. The embryos
in question would be obtained from in vitro fertilization clinics only from
those in excess of clinical need. I submit that, if the issue is morality,
using embryonic cells for potentially life-saving research is greatly
preferable to discarding them. Surely we should take advantage of the
enormous life-saving potential of the thousands of embryos that are
currently frozen and destined for destruction?
Great Britain has recognized the value of stem cell research, having
strongly recommend the use of embryonic stem cells, and is now considering
enabling publicly funded researchers to establish new embryonic stem cell
lines. Other European countries are moving in the same direction. I do not
believe that the Europeans are less moral or ethical than we. I also do not
believe that they are less sensitive to the sanctity of life. I do believe
that they have acted appropriately to enact by law the generation of new
sources for stem cells in order to save lives and reduce suffering of the
living and I believe we should do the same in this country.
In conclusion, The American Society for Cell Biology strongly endorses the
NIH Guidelines which will enable federally-funded scientists to pursue
embryonic stem cell research. We also endorse S.2015, "The Stem Cell
Research Act of 2000". We feel that, for the sake of humanity, studies
using all forms of stem cells ( embryonic, fetal and adult ( should be
pursued vigorously. We owe it to all those who are suffering to explore all
possible avenues that could lead to the prevention of, and remedies for,
disease.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify before you, Mr. Chairman. I
would be pleased to answer any questions.
P:/tleshan/ppolicy/HynestestH.rtf