The following article reports on the NIH report requested by HHS
secretary Thompson and submitted to the president a few weekks ago. It is
called the" most authoritative assessment to date of the therapeutic
potential and equally large uncertainties surrounding the rapidly
changing field."
RE: embryonic and adult stem cells:
" Stressing that the work remains very preliminary, the report states
that the
only way to address the many uncertainties around stem cells -- including
how
well any cells might work for treating diseases and which ones might work
best
-- is to conduct more research on both types."
FROM: The Washington Post
July 18, 2001, Wednesday, Final Edition
A SECTION; Pg. A01
HEADLINE: Embryo Cells' Promise Cited In NIH Study; Call for More
Research
Toughens Bush Choice
BY: Ceci Connolly
" Stem cells from adults and embryos both show enormous promise for
treating
an array of diseases but at this early stage, cells from days-old embryos
appear
to offer certain key advantages, according to a National Institutes of
Health
study being released today.
Embryonic stem cells are more plentiful and therefore easier to
extract, can
be grown and made to multiply in the laboratory more easily and appear to
have
the uncanny ability to develop into a much wider array of tissues, the
report
concludes.
Stressing that the work remains very preliminary, the report states
that the
only way to address the many uncertainties around stem cells -- including
how
well any cells might work for treating diseases and which ones might work
best
-- is to conduct more research on both types.
As President Bush struggles to decide whether to permit federal
funding of
the research, the eagerly awaited report could undercut two possible
compromises
-- funding only work on adult cells or only work with the handful of
existing
embryonic cell lines. The report states that the only way to explore the
cells'
full potential is by examining many different cell lines and both types
of
cells.
"To date it is impossible to predict which stem cells -- those
derived from
the embryo, the fetus, or the adult -- or which methods for manipulating
the
cells, will best meet the needs of basic research and clinical
applications. The
answers clearly lie in conducting more research," according to a 12-page
summary
of the report.
The 200-page report, requested by Health and Human Services Secretary
Tommy G. Thompson, is the result of an exhaustive review of the
scientific literature on the subject and represents the most
authoritative assessment to date of the therapeutic potential and equally
large uncertainties surrounding the rapidly
changing field.
The report comes as the debate over the research continues to
intensify.
Absent a presidential decision, lawmakers and advocates on both sides
have
aggressively joined the fight.
Proponents argue that federal funding is necessary to fully explore
whether
the cells could provide treatments for many diseases. Opponents object to
the
research because it requires destroying what they consider potential
human life.
The cells are primarily obtained from surplus embryos from fertility
clinics.
The NIH report is due to be released at a Senate hearing today being
convened by two of the most ardent proponents of federally funded
research on
all types of stem cells: Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Arlen Specter
(R-Pa.).
Also at the hearing, Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) is expected to declare
his
position on stem cell research. Yesterday, Capitol Hill buzzed with
speculation
over what his position will be because Bush aides have signaled the
president is
looking to the heart surgeon for guidance -- and perhaps some political
cover.
"I feel very encouraged about Bill's position," said Sen. Gordon
Smith
(R-Ore.) who spoke in favor of embryonic stem cell research despite his
opposition to abortion.
"This is about giving life to compassionate conservatism," he said.
"Life
does not begin in a petri dish; it begins with a mother. Being pro-life
means
helping the living as well."
Under guidelines developed by the Clinton administration, government
scientists would be permitted to conduct experiments on embryonic cells
as long
as the researchers did not participate in destroying embryos. Researchers
would
only have access to the cells after couples decided they did not want the
embryos themselves and did not want to donate them to another couple.
Although Thompson supports embryonic stem cell research, the report
by his
agency "does not make recommendations pertaining to the policies
governing
federal funding of such research," the authors wrote. It also makes no
effort to
analyze the ethical issues raised by the research.
The NIH report does detail apparent shortcomings in adult stem cells,
notably that those cells -- commonly taken from an individual's blood or
bone
marrow or skin -- do not have the flexibility to develop into all types
of
tissue.
"Current evidence indicates that the capability of adult stem cells
to give
rise to many different specialized cell types of more limited than that
of
embryonic stem cells," the report states. Adult stem cells are rare,
difficult
to identify and there may be "insufficient numbers of cells available for
transplantation."
The report notes, however, that there are possible limitations with
embryonic cells as well. For example, there is some evidence that the
cells
could form tumors. "It is not known whether similar results are observed
with
adult stem cells," the report states.
The best way to fully understand the potential of different types of
cells
is to develop many different cell lines.
"There have been very few studies that compare various stem cells'
lines
with each other. It may be that one source proves better for certain
applications, and a different cell source proves better for others," the
report
states.
At the first of two dueling congressional hearings this week, parents
of
children born from surplus embryos that had been "adopted" from fertility
clinics testified against funding the research. Mark and Luke Borden,
both 9
months old, would not be alive today if scientists had the opportunity to
experiment on their embryos, their parents said.
As he stood holding the two squirming toddlers, John Borden equated
embryonic stem cell research to the killing of a burgeoning life. "Which
one of
my children would you kill?" he asked. "Which one would you choose to
take?"
Nearly three hours later, 12-year-old twins Mollie and Jackie Singer
spoke
in support of the research. Describing her eight years with juvenile
diabetes --
"21,000 shots, 28,000 finger pricks and open heart surgery" -- Mollie
implored
the policymakers to do everything in their power to pursue treatments and
cures
of illnesses such as hers.
"I don't want Jackie or anyone to go through what I've been through,"
she
said."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
