This is an unsettling account of the impact of the political controversy
and the lack of US governement funding, on the researchers themselves ...
" To researchers ... the controversy means that what should be a
blossoming field has instead become marginalized. Instead of a mass
effort to
make healthy blood, brain tissue, and other organs from stem cells, just
five or
six labs scattered between Harvard and MIT work with the cells at all."
FROM: The Boston Globe
July 3, 2001, Tuesday ,THIRD EDITION
SECTION: NATIONAL/FOREIGN; Pg. A1
HEADLINE: FEAR, POLITICS SLOW STEM-CELL WORK
By Raja Mishra, Globe Staff
Dr. George Daley of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology sees
magic in
embryonic stem cells. He sees cures. But when he surveys the test
tube-lined
halls of Boston and Cambridge, he sees fear.
Grad students are not rushing into stem-cell research. Labs are not
bursting
with funding and discovery. Embryonic stem cells - highly flexible cells
with
the potential to morph into any human tissue - were supposed to be the
Next Big
Thing, and the medical powerhouses here were supposed to lead the field.
But
instead of focusing on petri dishes, the few local scientists such as
Daley who
venture into the research fret about politics. And they speak in hushed
tones
about their funding sources.
In the coming weeks, President Bush will decide whether taxpayer
money
can be used to fund embryonic stem cell work. Because stem cells are
harvested
from discarded embryos and fetuses, antiabortion activists equate the
harvesting
to partial-birth abortion and they warn of protests and pickets.
To researchers such as Daley, the controversy means that what should
be a
blossoming field has instead become marginalized. Instead of a mass
effort to
make healthy blood, brain tissue, and other organs from stem cells, just
five or
six labs scattered between Harvard and MIT work with the cells at all.
"I don't feel like I should have to justify this area of inquiry to
anyone.
It's so patently obvious to me how exciting and valuable it is," said
Daley, who
studies using stem cells to treat leukemia patients. "There should be
dozens if
not hundreds of labs working on this as opposed to a handful."
The debate started almost immediately after the initial embryonic stem
cell
breakthrough in late 1998. James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin
announced he had found the long-theorized cells in leftover embryos from
a
fertility clinic. At about the same time, John Gearhart at Johns Hopkins
University in Baltimore found the cells in human fetuses donated by women
treated at a local abortion clinic.
The scientific community was electrified, and the field of
regenerative
medicine - helping the body regrow itself - ignited. Stem cells were
mentioned
alongside the human genome project as a frontier of new millennium
science.
These cells are key in transforming the single cell formed when sperm
fertilizes an egg into the incredibly complex human body. Stem cells can
divide
indefinitely. Through genetic signals, they eventually specialize,
becoming
skin, nerves, bones, and the rest of the body. But before specialization,
they
are pluripotent - possessing the potential to become any tissue.
The current debate centers on the fertilized egg four days after
conception,
when it becomes a mass of several dozen cells called the blastocyst.
Researchers
wish to harvest the cells from the inner portion of the blastocyst, grow
them in
a test tube, and figure out how to prompt them to form whatever tissue
ailing
patients need. Potential applications include Parkinson's disease,
Alzheimer's
disease, heart disease, diabetes, stroke, burns, and spinal injuries.
But for those who believe life begins at conception - the single
initial cell
- harvesting blastocyst cells is tantamount to murder.
After the furor over the initial discovery in 1998, the Clinton
administration reviewed the ethics of stem cells, and gave out no federal
grants
for stem-cell research. A cloud hung over the field.
"The lifeblood of a field is federal funding. Without federal funding
it's
hard to grow a program," said MIT's Daley.
Late in President Bill Clinton's second term, the National Institutes
of
Health decided to fund research using stem cells gathered from embryos at
fertility clinics that were going to throw them out anyway. Aborted fetus
stem
cells were out.
Almost immediately after taking office, Bush suspended the NIH
decision and
asked his administration to review it. Many of his health advisers, led
by
Health and Human Services secretary Tommy Thompson, are urging him to
approve
the Clinton administration's standard. Some of Bush's staff members, such
as
White House chief political adviser Karl Rove, advise against it,
worrying that
conservative and Catholic voters will be angered.
But in Congress, where lawmakers will challenge Bush if he enacts a
ban, some
fervently antiabortion legislators have publicly supported embryonic stem
cell
work. Republican Senate leaders Trent Lott of Mississippi and Orrin Hatch
of
Utah are this faction's most influential members.
To date, the federal government has funded no embryonic stem-cell
research.
But that doesn't mean it hasn't occurred.
The initial cells harvested by the University of Wisconsin and Johns
Hopkins
were allowed to proliferate in lab gels. About a dozen "families" of
these cells
are thought to exist, though there is no accurate count. The cells are
now
entirely under the control of private entities. An alumni association at
the
University of Wisconsin set up WiCell, a nonprofit that has sold the
cells to 30
researchers for $5,000 per sample. The nonprofit mostly funds research
but also
makes money by running a boat company in Wisconsin and selling commercial
real
estate there, according to tax forms.
Also, scientists in Australia, Israel, and Singapore succeeded last
year in
harvesting the cells. They formed a company called ES Cell Australia Ltd.
And an
Israeli nonprofit also joined the game. Several researchers, including
some in
the Boston area, contract with them.
"I think it's unfortunate if access to this material is limited to the
private sector. It will do harm to patients in the long run," said Dr.
Evan
Snyder of Children's Hospital, who studies stem cells and neurological
damage.
"No scientist will have access to critique data. It would not be exposed
to
rigorous peer-review."
Snyder is actually free from the current controversy: Instead of
getting his
cells from embryos, he's made an arrangement with a local hospital to get
them
from preserved fetuses from abortions.
But embryonic stem cell research is controversial enough that even the
researchers themselves don't know exactly who is involved in the work.
"I honestly don't know who around here has used them other than us,"
said Bob
Langer, an MIT professor and a leader in the biochemistry field, who gets
his
stem cells from Israel. "If more good work was going on, it would be good
for
the field. It would make the field move faster."
In fact, if Bush enacts a ban on federal funding for the research,
several
local companies may get into the business of harvesting and selling the
cells.
"We were thinking about getting into" the sale of stem cells, said
Robert
Lanza of Worcester's Advanced Cell Technology, who nonetheless has urged
the
White House to allow federal funding.
But now the issue is slowly but surely bubbling up among antiabortion
activists. If Bush allows funding, it would likely become a hot-button
topic,
much like so-called partial birth abortion, a procedure sometimes used in
late-term abortions, said local antiabortion activists.
"It's conceivable that our members may picket these scientists," said
Ray
Neary, executive director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, with 20,000
members in the state. "I don't look very highly upon these scientists."
Daniel Avila, with the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, which
represents
the Commonwealth's four Catholic dioceses, said: "My sense is that there
is no
difference among activists between abortion clinics and stem-cell
research."
The brewing storm has led Daley to occasionally shed his lab coat to
travel
to the halls of power, meeting with senators and lobbyists in Washington.
"Is it a distraction? Yes. But I feel a responsibility to respond," he
said.
SIDEBAR: SOME KEY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
What are embryonic stem cells?
Unlike most cells, stem cells can divide indefinitely and turn into
any
tissue in the body. The vast majority of cells in our bodies are locked
into
being a single type of tissue, such as brain cells or heart cells.
Where do they come from?
The most versatile stem cells - called pluripotent stem cells - are
present
in the first days after an egg is fertilized by sperm. They are also
present in
some fetal tissue.
What can they be used for?
Researchers believe they can coax stem cells to become whatever tissue
patients need. They could be used to repair organs damaged by disease or
injuries. The cells might help treat Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's
disease,
damaged hearts, burns, diabetes, leukemia, and spinal cord damage.
Who is against using them? Why?
Those who believe life begins with conception. In the view of some
antiabortion advocates, gathering cells from embryos is the moral
equivalent of
abortion, which they view as murder.
How would Bush's decision affect stem cell research?
Bush is considering whether taxpayer money should fund the research.
Most
types of medical research receive government funding. If Bush approves
embryonic
stem cell research, dozens of scientists are likely to apply for grants
to
pursue stem cell work, and the field will grow. If he decides to ban it,
the
size of the field will be limited and be run, in large part, by private
companies and overseas researchers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
