New Jersey Online - The Times - News
Cell plan called ploy to stem abortions
06/14/01
By BETH E. FAND  Staff Writer

The idea, he says, is to advance science.
Rep. Chris Smith, R-Washington Township, wants to dedicate $30
million in federal funds to stem cell research and start a national
stem cell bank that would be available to sick people in need.

In a bill he and 38 co-sponsors introduced June 7, Smith suggested
the National Institutes of Health (NIH) get the money to do the
research and run the cell bank, which would contain umbilical
cord blood.

But some say the goals of the Responsible Stem Cell Research Act
of 2001 are not as lofty as they sound. According to the American
Society for Reproductive Medicine, the act does not promote the
best science because it is clouded by anti-abortion sentiment.

The group, along with Rep. Rush Holt, D-Hopewell Township,
says the problem with the bill is that it promotes adult stem cell
research as an alternative to research with embryonic stem cells,
while ideally both should be pursued.

The bill proposes no new bans or funding decreases for embryonic
stem cell research but describes the technique as unethical.

Stem cells are building blocks for all human tissue, and scientists
are learning to turn them into the specialized cells that work in
different parts of the body in an attempt to treat an array of illnesses.

Many believe the most useful stem cells come from embryos, but
some abortion opponents say it is wrong to destroy embryos for
research -- even if they are frozen in fertility clinics, waiting to be
discarded because they are not wanted by the couples who
created them.

Smith's bill allows for the use of stem cells harvested from children
and adults, placentas, umbilical cords and embryos expelled in
miscarriages, but not from frozen embryos.

That distinction, says a spokesman for the American Society for
Reproductive Medicine, is a political statement by Smith.

"Smith is probably one of the most ardent right-to-life members
of Congress," said Sean Tipton, whose Alabama-based organization
represents doctors who specialize in fertility, contraception and
menopause.

"His interest is in stopping abortions. I don't think his interest is
in advancing science. To pretend his legislation is going to
somehow advance science -- he's certainly not fooling me, and I
hope he's not fooling anybody else."

Smith's press secretary, Peter Dickinson, agreed that the bill takes
a "pro-life" approach, but insisted the purpose of the proposal is
to "advance medical science in the most effective and quickest
manner."

The bill, Dickinson said, "supports life, seeks to protect life and to
help cure people with conditions that threaten lives and does not
start at the base from destroying life."

Holt, however, maintained that embryonic stem cell research does
not destroy human life.

"Doing fetal stem cell research will not lead to a single additional
abortion in America," said Holt, a former research scientist. "It's
very misleading if anyone tried to turn this into an abortion issue."

Still, the issue seems to echo all the controversy of the abortion debate.

Congress has barred the use of federal money to pay for research that
destroys embryos, but during the Clinton administration the facility
was allowed to pay for such research if the embryonic cells were
extracted with private funds.

More recently, the Bush administration prohibited the NIH from
doing any research that would destroy embryos, no matter how
it was paid for, pending a review.

Tipton says that decision should be reversed on the chance that
embryonic stem cell research could result in cures for those who
are suffering and dying of conditions like diabetes, heart problems
and Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases.

"Adult stem cell research holds some promise, but the best scientific
information right now would make it appear that embryonic stem cells
are much better," Tipton said. "I don't think it should be an either/or
debate."

Neither does the NIH. According to its Web site, "It is important
to simultaneously pursue all lines of research" when it comes to
stem cells.

David Prentice, an Indiana researcher and professor cited as an
expert by Dickinson, argues that adult stem cells are better because
they are often harvested from the patient himself -- for instance, from
his bone marrow -- and can reduce the risk of rejection by the body.

The NIH agrees, but its Web site cautions that adult stem cells are
limited in their use because they have not been isolated for all tissues
of the body, often occur in tiny numbers and can carry abnormalities
developed from exposure to toxins.

Prentice said there is more to worry about with embryonic stem cell
research because that method has led to a string of failed experiments,
including at least one that left mice with tumors.

But Holt said his understanding is that embryonic stem cell research
is considered very promising throughout the scientific community.

"Fetal stem cell research is very important in saving lives and
reducing suffering and correcting debilitating conditions,"
Holt said. "All the scientists and medical researchers with whom
I'm in touch think that this research is very beneficial. Not to
pursue it would be a shame."

NOTE: The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.nj.com/news/times/index.ssf?/news/times/06-14-CSQR102B.html

********

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