X-Message-Number: 21409 From: "Mark Plus" <> Subject: NYTimes: Broad Movement Is Backing Embryo Stem Cell Research Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 18:31:25 -0800 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/16/science/16STEM.html?pagewanted=print&position=top March 16, 2003 Broad Movement Is Backing Embryo Stem Cell Research By RICHARD P REZ-PE A In state capitols, universities, charitable foundations, hospitals and companies around the country, a scattershot movement is under way to counteract President Bush's 2001 order sharply limiting federal money for embryonic stem cell research. Lawmakers in New York, Maryland, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington and Massachusetts are considering bills authorizing embryonic stem cell research, according to advocates of the research and the National Conference of State Legislatures. Some bills go further, as one passed in California did last year when it authorized the use of state money to support research using embryonic stem cells, which scientists contend could eventually yield treatments for diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, heart disease, cancer and other ailments. Mr. Bush and others who oppose such research say it is immoral because human embryos are destroyed when the cells are extracted. Private groups, meanwhile, have greatly increased their support of stem cell research. The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research, the Wellcome Trust, the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation and others have given tens of millions of dollars to various laboratories, many in Europe. Several universities, teaching hospitals and biotechnology companies have also stepped up their involvement in the field, as have wealthy individuals. Late last year, an anonymous benefactor gave Stanford University $12 million to build a stem cell research center, and Andrew S. Grove, the Intel chairman, gave the University of California at San Francisco $5 million for such a center. "This research holds tremendous promise for medical breakthroughs for things like spinal cord injury and diabetes, and most likely for a wide range of things we haven't even imagined yet," said Michael Manganiello, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, a lobbying effort by several disease research groups. Both sides in the debate say that these disparate efforts, significant though they may prove to be, do not approach the sums of money the government would have devoted to embryonic stem cell research, were it not for the Bush directive. In August 2001, President Bush decided that federal money could continue to be used for research on self-sustaining colonies, or lines, of cells that had already been extracted from human embryos. But he ordered that no new embryos be taken for federally financed research. The estimate of the number of viable lines in laboratories around the world at the time varies from more than 60 to fewer than 10. Supporters of such research point to the efforts to circumvent the presidential order as evidence that Mr. Bush's directive, paradoxically, has stimulated interest in the field among philanthropists, lawmakers and researchers. "A lot of these things, including the proposed state laws, would not have happened if the White House hadn't attempted to choke it off," Mr. Manganiello said. Opponents call the moves deeply disturbing, and say they show that the federal government should adopt tougher restrictions. They also say there is no evidence to support predictions that stem cells will produce medical breakthroughs. "The proliferation of these various efforts points to a need for an honest debate on this issue, especially since many scientists are recognizing that this is not a technology that is going to lead to therapies any time soon, if at all," said Richard M. Doerflinger, deputy director of anti-abortion activities at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. In the last year, the stem cell debate has merged with the one over human cloning. At one time, embryonic stem cell research involved only leftover frozen embryos created for people trying in-vitro fertilization. But scientists now want to preserve the right to create embryos through cloning. Congress has become deeply involved, debating proposals to ban cloning for reproduction, either with or without provisions allowing for cloning for research. But Congress has shown no inclination to enter the field of research on existing embryos and stem cell lines to either strengthen or weaken the president's 2001 order. The law in California and similar bills in other states explicitly prohibit reproductive cloning while allowing the cloning of embryos for research a position that could be rendered moot if Congress bans all human cloning. "No one wants to clone human beings," said Assemblyman Scott Stringer, a Manhattan Democrat who introduced the first bill in New York in support of embryonic stem cell research, in January. "The only goal is to cure devastating diseases, and if the federal government won't do it, the states have to." But opponents have attacked the bills as pro-cloning, saying that they would permit scientists to gestate a cloned embryo into a nearly fully developed fetus, then destroy it to harvest tissue. Scientists dismiss that claim. But it was that type of criticism that prompted lawmakers in New Jersey to withdraw their bill just before the final vote. Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said, "These bills, these researchers, are promoting not just research on existing embryos, which we object to, but fetus farming, the creation of embryos for the purpose of destroying them." Embryonic stem cells have the ability to evolve into cells of other types, giving them a particular fascination for medical researchers and, some say, tremendous promise in the treatment of serious diseases. Most cells in the body can be regenerated only by other cells of the same type, and some, like brain and nerve cells, are capable of little or no regeneration at all, greatly limiting the body's ability to repair damage. Opponents of embryonic stem cell research argue that there is an alternative: using so-called adult stem cells, which can be derived from blood, bone marrow, body fat and certain organs. But adult stem cells do not have as broad a range of possibilities as those taken from embryos. Stem cells can also be harvested from umbilical cord blood, and some scientists contend those may prove to be more versatile than adult stem cells. There is no opposition to research on either adult or cord blood stem cells. _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21409