 |
 |
Amid the current debate about the NIH guidelines for stem cell research, it might be helpful to consider the earlier political controversy over federal funding for fetal tissue research. I think this illustrates why the outcome of the U.S. election for President and for Congress is so important to PWP. According to the March of Dimes, fetal tissue research was "conducted since the late 1800's and has provided most of our knowledge about development before birth." In the 1950's and 60's such research led to the development of polio and rubella vaccines, Rh incompatibility treatment, and prenatal diagnosis of genetic diseases. Studies of fetal lung tissues led to a prenatal test for maturity of the unborn baby's lungs. Decisions about this research was based on scientific, not political issues. Research was beginning on fetal tissue tranplants as potential treatments for Parkinson's, diabetes, blood disorders , blindness, Huntington's Disease, Alzheimer's Disease, spinal motor neuron regeneration, intractable epilepsy, stroke, and other diseases. However in the late 1980's Presidents Reagan and Bush issued executive orders banning federal funding of research involving fetal tissue, and while the commercially funded research could continue, NIH grants were effectively ended . In 1991, a bill to lift the funding ban, introduced by Congressman Henry Waxman, was passed by the House of Representatives. In March 1992, the bill also passed the Senate, with the support of those on both sides of the abortion debate. However, the bill was then vetoed by President Bush. The House failed by only a few votes to override the president's veto. It was during this effort to restore federal funding for fetal tissue research that the Parkinson's Action Network was founded by Joan Samuelson and Anne Udall. The ban was lifted by legislation signed into law by President Clinton, shortly after taking office in 1993. Although treatments other than fetal cell transplants may now appear to offer more promise for PD -- current research depends on knowledge acquired during these earlier studies. How much further along the path to finding a cure might we be today, if earlier NIH funding had not been banned ? How much sooner will we arrive at the cure, if the scientists are fully supported and are allowed to pursue the most promising research? Linda Herman