 |
 |
For those that missed this post by Charlote Mancuso on 2-11-2000. How does this letter support Joan Samuelson's position on John McCain's views on stem cell research? Noone seems to want to try to answer this contradcition. Greg 47/35/35 Looks like John McCain has caved: This is what I was afraid of; didn't he say even recently that he was for stem cells? Now McCain signs a letter under the political pressure from Trent Lott, who was the one who scuttled the stem cell wording from the Senate's HHS appropriations Bill for FY2000. DEBATE OVER FETAL TISSUE RESEARCH HEATS UP AGAIN AS COMMENTS ON PROPOSED STEM CELL RESEARCH GUIDELINES ENCOMPASS USING EMBRYOS AND FETAL TISSUE AS SOURCES Proponents of stem cell research may soon find themselves fighting a two-front battle: as opponents ratchet up their efforts to block funding for experiments with embryonic cells, some of these same forces are working to at least discourage research with another stem cell source--fetal tissue. On the human embryo front, last week, Sen. Pete Domenici, R-NM, a strong supporter of medical research and chair of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, presidential candidate and chair of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-MS, were among 20 Senators who signed a letter to the National Institutes of Health opposing the agency's plan to fund experiments with stem cells derived from human embryos. Last year, a similar effort attracted the signatures of only seven Senators. The letter states that "despite their title," guidelines proposed by NIH for such work "do not regulate stem cell research." "Rather, they regulate the means by which researchers may obtain and destroy live human embryos in order to receive federal funds for subsequent research," the Senators claim. "Clearly, the destruction of human embryos is an integral part of the contemplated research, in violation of the law." The Senators were referring to a federal law that forbids taxpayer funds from being used for experiments that result in the destruction of a human embryo. Also signing the letter were Senators Sam Brownback, R-KS, Don Nickles, R-OK, George Voinovich, R-OH, John Ashcroft, R-MO, Jeff Sessions, R-AL, Jesse Helms, R-NC, Chuck Hagel, R-NE, Michael Enzi, R-WY, Rick Santorum, R-PA, Mike DeWine, R-OH, Kit Bond, R-MO, Bob Smith, R-NH, Tim Hutchinson, R-AR, Rod Grams, R-MN, Conrad Burns, R-MT, Jon Kyl, R-AZ, and Jim Bunning, R-KY. NIH officials insist their plan stays within the confines of the current ban on federal support for embryo research since agency funds could be spent only on work with stem cells, not embryos. The language in the guidelines that addresses the embryos themselves is intended by NIH to ensure their grantees acquire only stem cells from what the agency considers to be legitimate sources. For example, the proposed guidelines require that stem cells used by NIH-funded investigators must be derived from embryos left over from an infertility treatment, are no longer needed for a pregnancy, and are obtained through an informed consent process. Meanwhile, the NIH guidelines also include requirements for grantees who plan to work with fetal tissue as their stem cell source. But this aspect of the guidelines has gotten comparatively little attention, mainly because, unlike embryos, the 1993 NIH Revitalization Act explicitly allows NIH grantees to conduct research with fetal tissue, as long as the work adheres to certain standards. But now a group of lawmakers opposed to fetal tissue research has convinced Rep. Tom Bliley, R-VA, the chair of the House Commerce Committee, to hold a hearing into what they claim are unsavory and potentially illegal practices by certain private firms that obtain fetal tissue from abortion clinics and sell it to researchers. Lawmakers pushing for the hearings say what they simply want to know is whether any providers of fetal tissue have violated a component of the law forbidding them from seeking to profit on the transaction. The law allows that providers can recover the costs only, for example, of obtaining, transporting and preserving the material. Last November, the House approved a resolution (H.Res. 350) brought by, among others, Reps. Thomas Tancredo, R-CO, and Chris Smith, R-NJ--both staunch opponents of fetal tissue research--which claimed private companies engaging in what Smith and Tancredo refer to as "trafficking in baby body parts" were circumventing the fetal tissue law's prohibition against seeking excessive payments for their efforts. The resolution demands that Congress investigate. During the debate, Rep. Nita Lowey, D-NY, pointed out that in 1997 the General Accounting Office "investigated compliance with the detailed federal regulations governing this research and the GAO found no evidence of wrongdoing or abuse." She also noted that while NIH is charged with overseeing compliance with the fetal tissue research law, "no member of Congress has called the NIH or requested in writing any investigation." What some proponents of fetal tissue research--which is viewed by scientists as having the potential to produce new therapies for victims of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's--fear is that the hearings could have a chilling effect. An official with the Parkinson's Action Network said the organization believes if there are, in fact, "bad actors" they should be exposed, but it does not want the congressional action to end up discouraging "what is currently a lawful practice." According to a source skeptical of the Republican allegations, Democratic staff working in preparation for Bliley's hearings believe they will be able to debunk most of the more sensational aspects of the charges against tissue providers. But this source said the concern is that the hearing will make scientists worry that, even if they carefully follow the strictest of standards, they still could be subjected to harassment. The other concern, this person said, is that legitimate tissue providers--particularly nonprofits--will decide that the issue is too controversial and will stop supplying researchers. However, there is some indication that, in the Senate at least, Congress may be skeptical of placing new restrictions on researchers who work with fetal tissue. Last October, Sen. Bob Smith, R-NH, proposed an amendment (S.AMDT.2324) to legislation banning partial birth abortions that would have required scientists to file a range of information with the government about the origin of fetal tissue used in their research. The reports were to include, among other things, the "names, addresses and telephone numbers" of any "entity" involved in procuring the tissue, the abortion procedure involved and the amount of money paid for the tissue. The amendment was rejected 51-46. The potential of fetal tissue research to engender controversy was demonstrated late last year in Nebraska, when anti-abortion groups claimed researchers at the University of Nebraska were conducting stem cell research with fetal tissue obtained from a local abortion doctor without proper review. According to a recent article in Science magazine, the charges prompted Nebraska Governor Mike Johanns and other state officials to demand that the university halt the work. The university has refused, claiming the experiments had complied with federal law and had been cleared by a special panel convened by the school's Institutional Review Board. Science quoted a representative from the Washington-based Coalition for Traditional Values, a group opposed to fetal tissue research, claiming that the fight will move beyond Nebraska. Fetal tissue research already is being used as a wedge issue in the 2000 presidential campaign. The National Right to Life Committee is attacking John McCain for his vote in favor of fetal tissue research, claiming it's an indication that he is not sufficiently pro-life. The issue has been raised several times in the past two weeks during McCain's campaign appearances in South Carolina. McCain said he originally voted to oppose fetal tissue research but switched after watching his friend and fellow Arizonan Morris Udall suffer from Parkinson's. It was the potential to help people like Udall that galvanized the Senate to overwhelmingly support fetal issue research. Proponents of research with embryonic stem cells hope that people like paralysis victim Christopher Reeve can have a similar impact on their efforts, given the potential stem cells could have to relieve the suffering of spinal injury. Reeve is scheduled to testify February 22 at a hearing on stem cells convened by the Senate Appropriations Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies subcommittee. Television and movie star Michael J. Fox--who suffers from Parkinson's--also had been invited to the hearing but will be unable to attend because of a work commitment. --Matthew Davis ______________________________________________________________ Compiled by Washington Fax: an Information Service of F-D-C Reports, Inc. Managing Editor: Shirley Haley Phone: 508.999.6097 Fax: 508.994.9366