Stem cell research under siege

Fears of federal funding ban this summer crimp work on embryonic cells

By Anthony Shadid, Globe Staff, 5/29/2001

WASHINGTON - This summer, the Bush administration is expected to
render judgment on  one of the most fiercely contested intersections
of politics and medicine: Whether the federal  government will
provide funding for highly promising research into stem cells taken
from human  embryos.

But researchers at universities, biotech companies, and foundations
increasingly fear the months of  uncertainty have already set back
their efforts. Private funding is hard to find, they say, and
scientists, in particular younger researchers, are shying away from a
field that may hold the key to diseases such as diabetes, spinal cord
injury, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's.

Heard more and more often are complaints of a ''chilling effect''
from the potential for a federal  funding ban.

''Who wants to start up something today that may not be there in two
or three months?'' asked Dr.  Robert Goldstein, chief scientific
officer of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International
in New York. ''If you want to do this research, it's a mountain to
climb.''

Embryonic stem cells are primordial cells - first isolated by a
Wisconsin researcher in 1998 - that  can develop into any of the
body's tissues, potentially reversing the destruction diseases such
as  Parkinson's cause. That flexibility has led advocates of the
research to celebrate their potential. Just  last month, a study
suggested that stem cells could be turned into insulin-producing
cells known as islets, helping to treat diabetics.

But opponents of the work, whose ranks loosely mirror those of
abortion foes, claim that science is outpacing ethics. They don't
believe the destruction of human embryos can be justified, however
promising the research. And they're pleased with the prospect of
stalling a field of medicine to  which they're opposed.

''If it's true that the concern over embryonic stem cell research has
effectively turned away a great many more number of applicants for
federal funds, then I would call that a success for us,'' said  Scott
Weinberg, spokesman for American Life League, an antiabortion group.

The depth of the dispute over stem cells reflects not only the source
of the most promising cells - embryos - but also emerging research
that, while disputed, suggests there might be alternatives in adult
stem cells.

That prospect continues to be debated, however. Adult stem cells are
also elastic, but many scientists argue they are not as promising for
therapies, particularly to treat diabetes and Parkinson's. They
appear to be more difficult to grow in the lab, too.

Among scientists, the enthusiasm centers on embryonic stem cell
research.

''No scientist I know thinks this research is a sideshow or boring,''
said Douglas Melton, a Harvard University scientist and leading
researcher, who likened their use to a fire hydrant spraying out
cells to treat diseases. ''It's not an exaggeration to say every
family you know has some connection to someone with a disease with a
cellular deficiency.''

Congress has banned federally funded embryo research since 1995. But
in August, in light of the momentum behind the nascent field, the
National Institutes of Health issued rules allowing federally funded
research on stem cells removed from the tens of thousands of
fertilized eggs left behind at private fertility clinics. The key,
though, was that no federal money would be used to extract the cells,
a procedure that destroys the embryo, and that donors had given their
consent.

March was the deadline for applications. Only three were filed, and
one of those was later withdrawn. Then, last month, the NIH postponed
a meeting of the committee that was supposed to consider those
applications, pending a review by its parent agency, the Department
of Health and Human Services. That effectively shut down the
application process.

The review will be completed next month, an NIH spokesman said.
President Bush is expected to follow that with a final decision
before the end of summer. So far, the administration appears divided.
While Bush has come out against the research, his secretary of health
and human services, Tommy Thompson, has repeatedly stated his support
for the work.

Scientists say the lack of a clear government policy has hampered
their research. ''People like myself and colleagues would not bother
to apply,'' said Melton, who is studying the potential for stem cells
to treat diabetes. ''After people applied, they just pulled the plug
on it. You don't need to read tea leaves to see the signals coming
from the NIH.''

A federal ban would not necessarily end the research. But it would
make funding far more difficult since the NIH, one of the
government's biggest agencies, accounts for the bulk of medical
research and typically comes with fewer restrictions than private
financing. (Massachusetts received $1.5 billion in NIH funding last
year, second only to California.) And private underwriters often
steer clear of research that is not government-backed.

Some suggested the delays may also prompt a form of brain drain,
sending funding and expertise to countries with fewer prohibitions.

''It will eventually drive a promising area of biotechnology research
elsewhere and cause some of our leading researchers in research
organizations to seek opportunities overseas,'' said Robert Lanza,
vice president of medical and scientific deveopment at Worcester-
based Advanced Cell Technologies, which has invested in stem cell
research.

The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, with a research budget of
$120 million this year, is already funding human embryonic stem cell
studies in Britain, Spain, and Australia. A fourth study is at
Harvard.

Melton said he feared damage was already done. `If you're a young
person ... this has to have more than a minor effect on the decision
of what you work on,'' he said. ''If people are telling you it's
uncertain you'll get funding for this research, you might think, `Why
don't I study cancer?'''

Anthony Shadid can be reached by e-mail at [log in to unmask]

This story ran on page E01 of the Boston Globe on 5/29/2001.
© Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn