LISTSERV 16.0 - PARKINSN Archives

Thanks, Linda. It felt great to email Dr. Zerhouni a thank-you note this am.
Kathleen

-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: NIH Head Dr. Z favors lifting ESCR ban

It took a lot of courage fot NIH director Dr. Zerhouni to speak out as he did
against Bush' s stem cell research policies. In the end i think there is reason
to hope that science will triumph over ignorance and politics.
If you'd like to send a thank you note to Dr. Zerhouni, his email address is:
[log in to unmask]
-- rayilynlee <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
The transcript of Monday's Senate hearing with Dr. Zerhouni is now
available. The following section on stem cell research will be of
particular interest. It has generated intense media interest.

Tony Mazzaschi
AAMC

SENATOR HARKIN:
But the first thing I want to get into is something that Senator
Specter brought up and both of us worked together on this very hard and,
again, Senator Specter has just had the chairmanship during all those years
when we first isolated embryonic stem cells in Wisconsin, at the University
of Wisconsin, and Senator Specter had the first hearings on that and, as he
said, we've had 20 since then.

He and I have worked together harmoniously on this to try to push the
frontiers of this and to get around the restrictions.

But when you were appointed to your position five years ago, a lot of
people were anxious about what we were going to do about embryonic stem cell
research and about the restrictions that were placed on August 9, 2001 at
9:00 p.m.

At that time, you know there was a limit of how many stem cell lines
could be financed through federal funds for research. We were told at that
time there were 78, but then we've found out a lot since then.

Now, again, when you first came before this committee, you said you
wanted to let science take its course. Well, over the last five years,
science has taken its course. I thought that was profound on your part to do
so, to say that, because what we've discovered is that those 78 lines are
not 78, they're really about 21, at least that's the latest I've been told.

Only a handful are used on a regular basis, limiting their genetic
diversity. We know, also, that all of them have been contaminated because
they were grown on mouse feeder cells. So the likelihood that they would
ever be used for any human intervention are unlikely.

We now know that there's much better ways of deriving and growing stem
cells than what we knew in 2001.

However, the lines derived from these new methods are not eligible for
federal funding.

So given all that's happened in the last five years, I'd just like to
revisit this issue with you.

With everything you've told us about the vision for the future and
moving that line up and getting in front of this, would scientists have a
better chance of finding these new cures, new interventions for diseases if
the current restrictions on embryonic stem cell research were lifted?

DR. ZERHOUNI:

I think the answer is yes. My experience has been this. In 2001, I think
the policy that was put in place was the first one to fund embryonic stem
cell research. I think NIH has done a great job in the first three years of
that in establishing infrastructure, funding new scientists which weren't
fundable before.

Since 2004, I think it's very clear from the point of view of science
and what I have overseen that these cell lines will not be sufficient to do
all the research we need to do for the reasons that you mentioned, but the
most important one is that these cell lines have exhibited instability from
the genetic standpoint and it's not possible for me to see how we can
continue the momentum of science in stem cell research with the cell lines
that we have currently at NIH that can be funded.

So from my standpoint, it is clear today that American science would be
better served and the nation would be better served if we let our scientists
have access to more cell lines, so that they can study with the different
methods that have emerged since 2001, the different strategies that we now
understand, underlying the fundamental issue, which is nuclear programming
or DNA programming or reprogramming.

So the answer is yes.

SENATOR HARKIN:

Well, Dr. Zerhouni, let me ask you to comment on two things, then.

One is that what we're hearing a lot now in the press, in the popular
press, not so much in the scientific journals, is that we don't have to do
this, adult stem cells can take care of it all. Then we have amniotic stem
cells and then we have umbilical cord stem cells and that we don't need
embryonic stem cells, that all these others will handle it, will take care
of it.

And, secondly, just on the issue of stem cell research itself, how would
something like -- why is it so important that NIH do this? Already
California is doing it. I think Missouri just passed a constitutional
amendment on it. Iowa, my own state, the legislature just voted and the
governor signed into law lifting the ban in Iowa, Wisconsin, of course, New
York.

So different states are doing different things and a lot of times, when
I talk about this, people say, "Well, if the states are doing it, there's no
real reason for NIH to be involved in this."

So if you could address both of those. Why is it important for NIH and
what about adult stem cells and all these others being sufficient?

DR. ZERHOUNI:

Well, let me give you my point of view and I think the scientific point
of view here.

Again, my statement, as I made five years ago, is that I will always
stick to the scientific truth and disease knows no politics.

So let me say this. The presentations about adult stem cells having as
much or more potential than embryonic stem cells, in my view, do not hold
scientific water, if you will.

I think they are overstated. I think we do not know at this point where
the breakthroughs will come from. I think scientists who work in adult stem
cells themselves will tell you that we need to pursue as vigorously
embryonic stem cells.

My point of view is that all angles in stem cell research should be
pursued. I think people sometimes misunderstand what the fundamental
challenge is in stem cell research. It's not solely to use it to replace
things, like in adult stem cell transplantation, but it's to really
understand for the first time in the history of mankind how DNA is
programmed to reprogram.

Well, to do that, you need to have copies of cells that have been
programmed, adult stem cells, but, also, copies of cells that have never
been programmed forward, embryonic stem cells.

The key thing here is that the nation that understands that will be in a
stronger position, as we were in the 20th century for the information
revolution, for computers. It's basically the software of life that we're
talking about.

So from my standpoint as NIH director, it is in the best interest of our
scientists, our science and our country that we find ways and the nation
finds a way to allow the science to go full speed across adult and embryonic
stem cells equally.

SENATOR HARKIN:

And why is it so important for NIH?

DR. ZERHOUNI:

Right. So why is it important? As the NIH director, I can tell you that
the role that NIH has played in this country over the years has been second
to none. There is no state that can really provide the depth and oversight
and stimulation of this research over the long run.

This is not a one mile race. This may be a marathon and it is important,
I think, for NIH to play its historical role.

I think that we have done that. We can do this with appropriate
oversight, a lot of safeguards to make sure that this research is not
misused.

SENATOR HARKIN:

Ethical guidelines.

DR. ZERHOUNI:

Ethical guidelines. You know, Senator, we've done this. We've done this
with the recombinant advisory committee in 1976, '77, '78. At that time, as
you know, genetic engineering came on the scene. There was a huge question
about both the safety and the ethics of using genetic engineering.

Well, NIH took the lead and set up a committee, called the recombinant
advisory committee. We've been probably the most successful country in
biotechnology. We've created a completely new industry and I think that this
is the kind of role NIH can play.

If you have a patchwork of policies, a patchwork of different
approaches, you may not have the same standards, it will be very difficult
for our country to muster its strength unless we have some sort of move
forward in this area. We cannot, I don't think, be second best in this area.

I think it is important for us not to fight with one hand tied behind
our back here and NIH is key to that.

SENATOR HARKIN:

Also, from seeing what's happening out there now, I see that like
California, they're in a bidding warfare to get scientists to come there and
Missouri is now going to do some bidding and Wisconsin. I suppose Iowa will
probably get in the game now that we've lifted the law.

So it just seems that, to me anyway, by providing NIH with this
authority, which you have the experience, the oversight, you are the world's
leader, everyone recognizes NIH as being the gold standard of unbiased
research, that if you put a blanket over the NIH, it kind of reduces -- it
may not stop, but I think it would reduce a lot this kind of bidding warfare
between states and we'd have a national kind of approach on this.

Plus, NIH could reach out to other countries and coordinate other
countries in doing this research, also.

Could that kind of process take place?

DR. ZERHOUNI:

My view is that I think it's time to move forward in this area. It's
time for the nation's policymakers to find common ground, to make sure that
NIH does not lose its historical leadership.

I think we've maintained that leadership all the way to 2004- 2005, but
as we've discovered that the lines that we have are less viable than we
would have liked them to be, as these lines are older, I think it's
important to realize that we need to move forward here and NIH needs to
continue its historical role as the leader of biomedical research in the
world.

To sideline NIH in such an issue of importance, in my view, is
shortsighted. I think it wouldn't serve the nation well in the long run. We
need to find a way to move forward and I look at, obviously, it's more than
science that is involved here, but I hope that we can find that soon.

SENATOR HARKIN:

Well, Dr. Zerhouni, let me thank you for a very profound and courageous
statement that you've made here today.

ZERHOUNI:

Thank you.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

_______________________________________________
CAMR.friends mailing list
[log in to unmask]
http://www.freehood.net/mailman/listinfo/camr.friends

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn

________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn