 |
 |
The source of this article is USATODAY: http://tinyurl.com/5k3dy Posted 10/26/2004 10:55 PM Updated 10/27/2004 3:51 AM Stem-cell debate another division between Bush, Kerry By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — In his first televised address to the nation, President Bush took the debate over embryonic stem cell research from relative obscurity to national headlines. In his speech Aug. 9, 2001, Bush announced that federal money would be available for research using the limited number of stem cells created before that date — but not after. Since then, the debate over Bush's decision to limit spending for this research has grown louder, appearing on editorial pages, bioethics panels and the platforms of both major political parties. With Nov. 2 nearly here, voters face clear differences in the stem cell policies set out by Bush and Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry. Last week, Dana Reeve, the widow of actor and research proponent Christopher Reeve, endorsed Kerry because of his support for expanded federal spending on stem cell research. And Arnold Schwarzenegger, California's Republican governor, is supporting Proposition 71, a voter initiative that would provide nearly $3 billion in state spending for stem cell research over 10 years. California and New Jersey are the only states with laws that specifically allow embryo research. But if Proposition 71 passes, California will be the only state to effectively do an end-run around the federal restrictions with its own money. Science vs. social conservatism Embryonic stem cells are the originating cells from which all tissues in the body develop during the earliest days of pregnancy. Medical researchers hope to turn them into rejection-free transplant tissues to treat diabetes, Parkinson's disease and other ailments. WHY DOES NIH SPENDING MATTER? NIH is the 800-pound gorilla of biological research. Of the $25.4 billion in federal research money that went to academic and private "life sciences" research in 2002, for example, $19.7 billion came from NIH. NIH's grants dwarf those from universities, as well as state and local governments, the next-largest spenders on basic research. Just as important, top-flight biomedical researchers often are trained and organized around the parameters of NIH grants, says biologist Larry Goldstein of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute at the University of California-San Diego. Goldstein says researchers incur a huge added cost in ensuring that equipment purchased with previous NIH grant money is not used for research on embryonic stem cell lines not approved under Bush administration spending restrictions. That's essentially all lines created after Aug. 9, 2001. The NIH's James Battey, who heads the institutes' stem cell efforts, says researchers do not need to have completely separate labs to ensure that NIH-financed equipment isn't used on unapproved stem cell lines. But many university researchers, and their lawyers, worry that they will face legal action later if they don't take this expensive extra step. Stem cell researchers want federal money for research on the several dozen lineages of cells, called lines, created since 2001. But critics say the destruction of embryos that produced the cells is immoral. Bush spent months making his decision, casting it as a balanced position between science and morality. Biomedical researchers were pitted against social conservatives. Their dispute has emerged as another flashpoint in the "cultural debate engulfing our country today" over abortion, as Sen. Sam Brownback, R.-Kansas, noted at a stem cell research panel in September in Washington, D.C., organized by Scientific American magazine. Brownback is the principal sponsor of a Senate bill that would ban the cloning technique that researchers hope will be the future source of embryonic stem cells. Newer stem cell lines hardier Human embryonic stem cells were first isolated in November 1998 by a team led by pathologist James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin. The Clinton administration concluded that the federal government could pay for research using such cells regardless of when they were created, despite a 1996 law banning federal spending of research that harms embryos. The Bush campaign did not respond to requests for comment but supporters of his policy, such as National Institutes of Health chief Elias Zerhouni, who also spoke at the Scientific American panel, note that almost $25 million in NIH grants went to embryonic stem cell researchers last year. And "there is no cap on federal funding" of research on approved cell lines, Zerhouni says. ISSUES 2004 Supreme Court Postwar Iraq Creating jobs Economic issues Health insurance Energy independence Stem cell research Opponents of the Bush policy, like biologist Robert Lanza of Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Mass., says the policy blocks top researchers from their standard source of funding, limiting the feasibility of looking at newer stem cell lines. Lanza says the newer lines are hardier and in some cases bear the markers of congenital diseases like muscular dystrophy, whose origins are a mystery. Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., says the policy makes an artificial moral distinction between cells created one day and those created another. Fear: Creating embryos for research If Kerry wins, he promises to lift Bush's restriction. Dozens of newer stem cell lines, undamaged by long periods of cell replication, would become available for federal financing. But a Kerry win won't lift all spending restrictions, says biologist Larry Goldstein of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. As mentioned above, a 1996 law, the so-called Dickey amendment, bans federal funding of research that harms embryos. It would still prevent federal money going to create new embryonic stem cell lines, even ones derived from embryos discarded by fertility clinics. (About 400,000 excess embryos are frozen in fertility clinics nationwide; 84% of those clinics regularly discard unwanted embryos, according to a July study.) "We don't support that limitation," says Kerry campaign national policy director Sarah Bianchi. But she acknowledges that Kerry, if elected, would have to work with Congress to remove the restriction. A Kerry victory and removal of the Dickey amendment would result in a national program to "mass create human embryos for research," says the National Right to Life Committee, which opposes the research. Kerry's campaign says he would support funding only stem cells from the unused embryos created by fertility clinics. In the long term, the future of embryonic stem cell research will largely be shaped by the research limits tolerated by an aging population that sees both medical cures and moral quandaries in science, say observers on both sides of the debate. "The only long-lasting solution will be the president and Congress eventually sitting down and working out a sensible policy," Goldstein says. Comparing the candidates' positions Bush Plan Promises to continue his position that federal money will go only to research using embryonic stem cells created before Aug. 9, 2001. Supports a Costa Rican proposal at the United Nations to forbid worldwide all forms of cloning, including so-called therapeutic cloning, the use of embryonic stem cells to treat diseases. Record Had said about 60 embryonic stem cell lines, or separate lineages of cells, would be available for federal spending because of his decision. Today, however, only 22 lines are now on the National Institutes of Health registry. About $25 million in NIH grants went to embryonic stem cell researchers last year under the Bush policy, up from $10 million the year before. Three-year NIH training grants to five not just the ones on the federal registry. Words Bush's Words (In an interview with Science magazine): "I believe that scientific discovery and ethical principles can go hand in hand and that we should not use taxpayer money to encourage or endorse the additional destruction of living, human embryos." Kerry Plan Promises to lift Bush's restriction on federally funding research on embryonic stem cell lines created since 2001. Also promises to spend $100 million a year on this research. Seeks to overturn a 1996 law called the Dickey amendment that bans federal spending on the creation of embryonic stem cell lines. Since July, he has been a co-sponsor of a Senate bill, the Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2003, designed to ban human cloning but protect stem cell research. Currently in committee, the bill would allow the creation of human embryos for use in research. The bill stipulates that the embryos would not be allowed to develop past 14 days, a position echoing a recommendation of the President's Council on Bioethics. Kerry's Words (To an audience in Columbus, Ohio, on Oct. 21): "It is wrong to tell scientists that they can't cross the frontiers of new knowledge. It is wrong morally and it is wrong economically, and when I am president, we will change this policy and we will lead the world in stem cell research." Source: USA TODAY research ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn