-- [ From: Seymour Gross * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] --

Philadelphia Inquirer, January 20, 1999, Page 1

U.S. to finance research on stem cells from embryos

Promise is great, but ethics are an issue.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
  Researchers give nod to experimental diet drug
 HEALTH PHILADELPHIA: More health news and Q&A's with doctors

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------




By Usha Lee McFarling
INQUIRER WASHINGTON BUREAU


WASHINGTON -- The federal government has decided to fund research on
embryonic stem cells -- controversial biological entities that promise
revolutionary medical advances like patching hearts, reversing paralysis
, and curing such maladies as Parkinson's disease.
A federal ban on all experiments that destroy human embryos does not
apply to stem cells, because once they are taken from an embryo and
cultivated in a laboratory dish, the cells can no longer develop into a
whole organism, said Dr. Harold Varmus, director of the National
Institutes of Health.

The decision, which some see as an ethical stamp of approval, marks an
important turn in a debate over the newly discovered cells. While
researchers who finally captured and tamed the elusive cells this winter
certainly pushed back a biological barrier, they are still confronting
an ethical one.

For instance, scientists have yet to agree on exactly what these new
cells represent -- if they are closer to embryos and merit moral
consideration, or if they are more like basic cells that can be casually
discarded.

The debate is rife with larger questions: Should scientists use "spare
embryos" from infertility clinics for work that could benefit millions?
Should the moral arguments surrounding abortion make fetal tissue off-
limits as a source of stem cells? And might a clump of stem cells have
independent "moral status"?

"Biology is changing the way we think about each cell in our body," said
Varmus. "Our perspective on life has been changed profoundly by these
developments."

Varmus made his comments yesterday before the National Bioethics
Advisory Commission, which met in Washington to address the ethics of
stem-cell research at the request of President Clinton.

While federally funded researchers may work on cells that have already
been cultivated by scientists working with private funds, they are not
permitted to use federal dollars to obtain new cells by destroying
living embryos or creating human clones, Varmus said. Work on obtaining
cells from the tissue of aborted fetuses could be funded because it does
not involve destroying an embryo, he said.

Varmus said his decision was based on a legal ruling by lawyers at the
Department of Health and Human Services, which would fund any such
research. He said no federally funded research would be allowed until
ethical guidelines were in place and the issue had been discussed with
Congress and the public. He estimated that stem cell research could
account for up to several million dollars' worth of the NIH's $16
billion budget.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.) has said he is also drafting legislation
that would ensure that bans on embryo research do not impede stem-cell
research.

"I think every day that we lose on lifting the NIH ban costs lives," he
said last week during a Senate subcommittee hearing on stem cells.

Disagreement over the decision was already surfacing yesterday from
those who oppose any research linked to the destruction of embryos.

"The method of obtaining the cells is lethal to the embryo," said
Richard M. Doerflinger of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.
"The fact that NIH will not fund the act of destruction itself seems
secondary. It will reward those who use the fruits of that destruction."

Others argued that any decisions on the ethics of the research must take
into account possible medical benefits.

"The potential of this area makes it unthinkable not to proceed," said
Austin Smith, a leading stem-cell researcher from Edinburgh, Scotland.

Doerflinger said that scientists should pursue other ways to obtain stem
cells, such as obtaining tissue from miscarriages, and that no matter
what the medical benefits are, "the ends do not justify the means."

New scientific developments in the rapidly moving field have some
scientists hoping for a way to harness the power of stem cells that
avoids using controversial embryonic tissue.

This month, Swedish scientists reported finding neural stem cells in the
brains of adult mice. The cells might be raw material to create new
neurons for people with spinal cord injuries or Parkinson's or
Alzheimer's disease.

Using cells from adult human brains would sidestep ethical issues, but
it is unclear whether the neural stem cells could be converted into
other, non-brain tissues.

Varmus said it might be possible to reengineer a patient's own adult
cells back into stem cells and use those to create various types of new
tissues.

Human embryonic stem cells made their long-awaited debut in November,
when James Thompson, a developmental biologist from the University of
Wisconsin, published a paper describing how he had isolated the elusive
and finicky cells from extra embryos that had been donated by
infertility clinic patrons and coaxed them to grow in his laboratory
dishes.

Days later, John Gearhart of Johns Hopkins University reported that his
lab had accomplished the same feat using tissue from fetuses that had
been aborted.

Embryonic stem cells are difficult to capture because they are so
fleeting. In the elegant choreography that transforms a single cell into
a human baby, cells leap quickly down paths of individual and
irreversible development: Some are destined to become heart, some muscle
and others brain. But if captured early enough, the cells can turn
themselves into virtually any one of the body's 210 cell types.

Corralling the cells offers the potential to create tissues-to-order --
new nerve cells or new heart muscle -- a veritable spare-parts kit for
the human body. The cells could also be used to create batches of living
human tissue, now a rare and costly commodity, in which to screen new
drugs.

That potential will not be turned into therapy until scientists overcome
two major obstacles. The first is finding ways to keep stem-cell
transplants from being rejected by a recipient's immune system. This
might require genetically engineering the cells so they aren't
recognized as foreign, or using cloning techniques so cells match a
donor exactly.

Second, scientists will not be able to create a catalog of tissues until
they unravel the chemical cocktails that swirl inside and outside stem
cells and goad them into becoming different types of tissue. Breaking
those codes will require much work at the laboratory benches of numerous
scientific teams.

"The challenge that's facing us is to make this real," said Smith, the
researcher. "How long will this take?"

Those in the field estimate that it will be five to 12 years before any
of the new stem-cell findings are converted into medical therapies. That
timetable would be speeded by federal funding, which is likely to
attract more scientists to the field. Proponents also say federal
funding would offer more ethical oversight and academic openness than
research conducted in private, for-profit laboratories.

The current research, all legal, was funded privately by Geron Corp., a
Silicon Valley biotechnology company. The company's stock nearly doubled
after the stem-cell research was announced in November.


© 1998 Philadelphia Newspapers Inc.