The source of this article is the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: 
http://tinyurl.com/c2btu

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 · Last updated 7:09 p.m. PT

GOP probes non-destructive cell research

By LAURIE KELLMAN
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- Antiabortion Republicans looking for a way to vote for stem 
cell research are considering putting federal dollars behind unproven 
technologies for harvesting the all-purpose cells without destroying human 
embryos.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and other GOP lawmakers are considering 
legislation drawn from a report in May by President Bush's Council on 
Bioethics, which studied research that might carry medical promise but is 
in its infancy.

In some cases, the research is ethically objectionable, the panel wrote. 
Nonetheless, it said four types of studies "deserve the nation's careful 
and serious consideration."

Bush was receptive to funding the theoretical approaches rather than 
medically more-promising research that destroys embryos, three lawmakers 
who have discussed the subject with him told The Associated Press.

"There was a sense around the table that if we could discover a way to 
extract the stem cells without destroying the embryo, that that was 
something that nearly everyone could support," said Rep. David Dreier, 
R-Calif., who discussed the option with Bush at a White House meeting 
earlier this month. "The president was very enthusiastic about that. He 
clearly supported it."

Bush has repeatedly said he would veto a bill the House passed last month 
backing standard embryonic stem cell research and any similar version by 
the Senate, which is expected to turn to the issue in July.

"We'll probably consider a number of bills," Frist told the AP.

Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., who also attended the meeting with Bush, said he 
may try to amend one of Congress' must-pass spending bills to provide 
federal money for specific studies outlined in the bioethics council's report.



Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., said that in his own talk with Bush, he found 
the president "looking for a way to stay within his ethical boundaries."

Almost two-thirds of Americans say they support embryonic stem cell 
research and a majority of people say they would like to see fewer 
restrictions on taxpayer funding for those studies, according to recent 
polling.

The proposal may free senators from a tight spot between Bush's veto threat 
and public pressure for embryonic stem cell research, which has shown 
promise in the search for cures for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and other 
diseases.

But it also would spend millions of dollars on studies whose value is 
speculative. Some of the techniques have not even been attempted in animals.

Frist, who is a heart and lung transplant surgeon, told the AP at least 
three of the processes on the bioethics council's list met his criteria for 
funding embryonic stem cell research.

"All of the research you have there stops short of the creation of an 
embryo for experimental purposes, and short of destruction of an embryo for 
experimental purposes," he said. "That is the direction I think we should 
explore."

Those are the same boundaries set out by Bush, who in a 2001 executive 
order prohibited federal funding of any research using human embryonic stem 
cells harvested after Aug. 9 of that year.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, a chief supporter of traditional embryonic stem 
cell research, shrugged at the notion of an alternative.

"Most of these ideas are nothing but theories. They haven't been tested," 
he said Wednesday.

The processes studied by the council could theoretically develop embryonic 
stem cell lines - which can develop into any cell in the body - without 
harming the embryo. They would:

- Derive stem cells from technically dead embryos. When embryos frozen 
during in-vitro fertilization are thawed, some never resume dividing and 
thus are discarded. No one knows if scientists could find healthy stem 
cells inside an embryo already so damaged that it wouldn't grow, or coax 
them to live when transferred out of that embryo.

- Extract stem cells from two-day-old embryos using a non-lethal biopsy 
technique. Until now, most stem cells have been culled from embryos that 
contain 100 or so cells. However, in vitro fertilization clinics frequently 
extract one cell, called a blastomere, from a younger eight-celled embryo 
to perform genetic testing - to tell, for instance, if some embryos will 
have a disease like cystic fibrosis. This testing doesn't destroy the 
embryo, so women can choose to have only healthy ones implanted. According 
to one report, more than 1,000 healthy children have been born after 
blastomere testing. The questions are whether enough stem cells could be 
culled from a single blastomere to be worthwhile, and which embryos would 
be used.

-Develop stem cells derived from specially engineered tissue. One technique 
to do so is called "altered nuclear transfer," essentially cloning in a way 
that grows only tissue, not an actual embryo. This process hasn't been 
attempted yet.

-Turning back the clock on older cells so they again become "pluripotent," 
the scientific term for the ability to turn into any tissue. Scientists 
already are trying to do this to some degree through so-called "adult stem 
cell" research, such as turning blood-making cells into cells that produce 
liver or muscle tissues. It's not clear if older cells can be returned to 
an embryonic state.

Bush's bioethics council gave the most ringing endorsement to the specially 
engineered tissue process, because no embryo would be involved - the 
process Frist most liked, too - and called the blastomere approach unethical.

---

AP Medical Writer Lauran Neergaard contributed to this report.

---

The House bill is H.R. 810.

---

On the Net:

President's Council on Bioethics: http://www.bioethics.gov

Legislation: http://thomas.loc.gov

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