The Los Angeles Times
Thursday, June 21, 2001
Heart Assn. Chills Embryo Cell Studies
Health: Organization's retreat on promising research infuriates
patient advocates.
By AARON ZITNER, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON--As evidence mounted last year that embryo cells
could be tweaked in ways that might cure disease, the American
Heart Assn. decided to spend some of its own money to see
whether the cells could ease heart disease. No less would be
expected from an organization that exists largely to tame the
nation's No. 1 killer.

Then came a flood of protest letters, including one from the Roman
Catholic archbishop of St. Louis. In Missouri, an entire fund-raising
committee resigned, dropping its plans for a gala ball. Donors who
opposed abortion said they could not support the destruction
of human embryos.

So now, just as President Bush is deciding whether to invest federal
money in embryo cell research, the nation's second-largest patient
advocacy group has gone silent. In fact, its board voted last October
not to fund the very research that it had endorsed only four months
earlier as full of promise.

The American Heart Assn.'s reversal shows just how uncertain the
political waters have become as Bush readies his decision on the
research, which is expected in July. Like the heart association, Bush
must choose between the hope that embryo research will save lives
and the fear that it will alienate those donors and supporters who
object to experiments in which human embryos are destroyed.

Bush, in his limited public comments so far, has given every
indication that he will oppose federal funding for the research.
And yet some other abortion foes, when faced with a similar choice,
have backed patients over embryos. Last week, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch
(R-Utah) broke with his anti-abortion allies and urged Bush to
support embryo cell research, lauding its potential to cure cancer,
Alzheimer's disease and diabetes. Two other Senate Republican
abortion foes have long supported the research. Health and Human
Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson, an abortion opponent and
former governor, argues that the research is "very important."

Advocates for the research hope that these Republicans will show
Bush that he can safely support embryo cell research without
alienating the conservative voters who helped him reach the White
House.

But at the same time, the American Heart Assn. stands as the
opposite example--as a patient advocacy group that will not
advocate for the research. "This raises the question whether
this makes it easier for Bush to oppose embryo cell research,
because he can say the American people are unhappy with it,"
said Alexander Capron, a professor of law and medicine at USC.

Several other disease advocacy groups are unhappy that the
heart association will not ask its force of more than 4 million
volunteers to lobby the White House to support federal funding.

"On issues like these, patients and families are the best advocates
you can have," said Sean Tipton, spokesman for the American
Society for Reproductive Medicine. "The heart association is
influential in this town, and we sure wish they would join us in
the efforts to mobilize their people for [embryo cell] research."

"It's a legitimate decision for them to make, but it's based on
fund-raising and not on science," said Douglas Melton, a
diabetes researcher and chairman of Harvard University's
department of molecular and cellular biology. "As a scientist,
I can say their decision is shocking."

Groups devoted to juvenile diabetes, spinal cord injury,
Parkinson's disease and other ailments are leading a campaign
to persuade Bush to support the research. Like the heart
association, the American Cancer Society--the nation's largest
patients' group by donations--has not joined the coalition.

Officially, the national board of the American Heart Assn.
supports federal funding for the research, but the group is
not lobbying Bush for it, and it declines to spend any of its
$133-million annual research budget on embryo experiments.
The route to its nuanced position was circuitous and contained
a few surprises.

Research using embryos became an issue in November 1998,
when a University of Wisconsin researcher first isolated and
cultured a special type of cell, known as a stem cell, that arises
in embryos several days after sperm meets egg. As the embryo
grows, its stem cells give rise to every other type of cell, tissue
and organ in the body.

The discovery of embryonic stem cells immediately raised
hopes that doctors could one day learn to grow them into
replacement tissues for patients--new brain cells for Parkinson's
patients, pancreas cells for diabetics and nerve cells for people
with spinal cord injuries. Many researchers looked to fertility
clinics as a source of embryos, as fertility patients often create
more embryos than they need when trying to conceive children.

At the heart association, officials were also excited about stem
cells. "Stem cells could conceivably repair damaged heart tissue
and even repair damaged brain tissue in the case of stroke,"
said Dr. John Schafer, a California neurologist and former heart
association board member.

In the spring of 1999, the heart association formed a task force to
consider whether to fund stem cell research. As part of its work,
the task force surveyed not only the science but also the opinion
of heart association leaders. It polled the 15 regional affiliates,
the 13 scientific councils and various other committees that oversee
the group's management and programs.

The reports that came back generally cheered supporters
of embryo cell research.

Scientists in the surveys thought the heart association should fund
stem cell research. The regional leaders were split by geography.

Those in the Northeast were fully supportive of association funding,
while those in the heartland thought the group might pay a penalty
in donations and volunteerism.

Last June, the task force presented its report to the 43-member
national board of directors, which voted to fund embryo cell
experiments, once ethical guidelines were completed and approved.

But the task force had miscalculated. It had surveyed the
association at a time when stem cell research was not widely
debated or understood.

Shortly after the June vote, Pope John Paul II said that medical
techniques that destroy embryos are "not morally acceptable,
even when their proposed goal is good in itself." Senators
began debating the research, showing that people held widely
divergent views.

Regional affiliates of the association began reporting that
volunteers were threatening to quit. Corporate donors, wary of
controversy, suggested that they might also pull out, Livingston
said.  Among the protest letters was one from Archbishop Justin
Rigali, who leads the Archdiocese of St. Louis.

Reconsidering public opinion, officials made a new damage
assessment: Funding stem cell research would cut donations
by $9 million to $15 million in the first year and by $45 million
to $50 million the next. The association raised $485 million last
year.

Officials worried that by funding the speculative work on embryo
cells they might lose money slated for other important research.

Moreover, officials worried that its volunteers would no longer
be able to speak at certain churches and hospitals, delivering the
message of how to prevent heart disease and stroke. And the
group's political goals, such as boosting federal health research
funding and requiring defibrillators in public buildings, might
also be jeopardized.

Looking to Bush's decision, David Livingston, an executive
vice president of the heart association, said he did not see much
room for compromise between supporters and opponents of the
research. "It's hard to say there are going to be all winners. Some
are going to be unhappy, regardless of how it comes out."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/20010621/t000051291.html

* * *

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