Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 93 (Tuesday, July 12, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 93 (Tuesday, July 12, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H5728-H5736]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STEM CELL RESEARCH

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Miss McMorris). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Bartlett) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, there have been a number of
articles in the recent press relative to stem cell research, with
particular reference to embryonic stem cell research. I thought it
might be well in starting this little discussion to take a look at what
we mean by stem cells.
I have here a chart which shows in very abbreviated form the
development of an early embryo. It starts out with the zygote, which is
the fertilized egg; and then it skips a couple of stages of
development, and it goes through the blastocyst, and then it goes to
the gastrula. By the time the embryo gets to the gastrula stage, the
cells have already differentiated to the place that we have three
different kinds of somatic stem cells. This is the ectoderm, and the
mesoderm, and the endoderm, and then those very specialized cells,
which in the female will be the germ cells in the ovary, the ova, and
in the male will be the millions and millions of sperm that are in the
gonads of the male.
If we look back, Madam Speaker, at these stem cells that are present
here in the gastrula, where we have these three, as we call germ
layers, we see the ectoderm can further differentiate into skin and
nervous system and some of the pigment cells in our body; and then the
mesoderm, the middle layer, that differentiates into what is most of us
by mass and weight, cardiac muscle, our big skeletal muscles, the bone,
the smooth muscle, all of our blood, and the blood is an organ, it
happens to be a liquid organ that is dispersed through the body; and
then the endoderm. This is much more limited in volume and in variety,
but still very important. The pancreatic cells, the thyroid cells, the
lining of the gut, the lining of the lung and so forth.
It might be worth just a moment, Madam Speaker, to take a look at our
next chart, which kind of puts this in context. We started out with the
zygote, which is the fertilized egg here, and we ended up with the
inner cell mass with these three germ layers. What we show here are all
the stages that were omitted in that first chart. This is one-half, as
the little diagram here in the upper left shows, of the reproductive
tract of a female. It shows the ovary on one side and the fallopian
tube, with the funnel-like opening here called the infundibulum. Then
it shows the fallopian tube on down to the uterus itself.
What it shows, Madam Speaker, is that fertilization takes place well
up in the fallopian tube, and that begins day one. And then as the egg
slowly moves down the tube, it splits first into two cells, then four
cells, and then eight cells, and then the larger variety of cells, and
finally where you have the inner cell mass and then to the gastrula.
There are two kinds of stem cells, adult stem cells, and those are
derivatives of the cells that we showed in the previous chart. For
instance, in the humans we have adult stem cells in our bone marrow.
These are cells which are differentiated to the point that they will
produce a limited variety of cells, but still undifferentiated to an
extent because these stem cells in the bone marrow can produce red
blood cells and polymorphonuclear leukocytes, part of the white blood
cells, and the thrombocytes, those are the cells, the platelets as we
call them, that are associated with clotting. And there are a number of
adult stem cells similar to that that still retain some of the
capability for producing more than just one kind of cell.
We have been working with adult stem cells medically now for more
than 3 decades, and there have been a number of medical applications,
treatment of humans that have been made with adult stem cells. But just
because they are what they are, Madam Speaker, a great number of people
believe that there should be more potential from the embryonic stem
cells simply because they can produce any and all of the tissues of the
body.
Since we have been working with embryonic stem cells for now just a
little over 6 years, we have not had the opportunities for medical
applications we have had in adult stem cells, but this does not dim the
hopes of the scientific community and the medical community that
ultimately there may be more and better applications of embryonic stem
cells to treatment of diseases than adult stem cells, simply because of
what they are, puripotent cells retaining the ability to produce any
and all of the tissues of the body.
It is possible, Madam Speaker, that this characteristic, which makes
them so potentially attractive and exciting, may be uncontrollable.
They may be so bent on dividing that we cannot control their division.
They may end up producing tumors and cancer-like growths in the
organism in which you put them.
But if that can be controlled, the medical community and the
researchers associated with it believe there is potential for enormous
applications to medicine of embryonic stem cell research. We have now
had 58 applications of adult stem cells in helping to treat some of the
diseases.
What are the diseases that could be treated with stem cells?
Ordinarily, one thinks that the greatest potential for the use of stem
cells would result from use in diseases from tissue deficiency rather
than diseases that result from some organism, although if there is an
infection in the body and a tissue is damaged, there is the hope that
it might be replaced with stem cell application. There are a number of
diseases that the scientific community and the general public believe
might be amenable to treatment with stem cells, particularly embryonic
stem cells.
Diabetes is one of those. This is the most costly disease in our
country. It costs more to treat the diabetics in our country than any
other single disease. I have these come through my office. Particularly
heartrending are the little children that come there, 5 and 6 years old
some of them, such brittle juvenile diabetics that they have an
implanted pump and they have to prick their finger or some part of
their body a number of times a day to monitor the glucose level so that
just the right amount of insulin can be injected to control this.
This insulin is produced by cells called island of Langerhan cells.
Dr. Langerhan was the German scientist that described them. And they
look like little eyelets because they are simply distributed through
the tissue of the pancreas. The pancreas is a very large gland at the
very beginning of the small intestine that secretes all of the
different kinds of digestive enzymes so that fats, carbohydrates, and
proteins all are digested using the enzymes secreted by the pancreas.

{time} 2115

I have no idea why nature placed the islets of Langerhans in the
pancreas. They could be placed anywhere. With these stem cell
applications if we could create islet tissue, they could be placed in
the person. It could be placed in the groin, under their arm, under the
skin, anywhere. It does not have to be in the pancreas. This islet
tissue could then make insulin which would cure diabetes. When you give
insulin to the diabetic, it delays progression of the disease, but it
does not cure it. A person with juvenile diabetes faces the prospect
that they probably will have a shortened life, problems with their
vision as the vascular bed in the back of the eye breaks down, and they
may

[[Page H5729]]

have problems with circulation in their extremities, particularly in
the feet where there is some difficulty getting blood back uphill to
the heart.
As many people in this country know through relatives and friends,
this results frequently in sores that do not heal and results in
gangrene, so the toes or a foot may need to be taken off. Diabetes is
one of the diseases that is very attractive as a potential for use of
stem cells, because if we could just produce islet tissue, we could
cure diabetes, the most expensive disease that we have.
Another disease is multiple sclerosis, and if impaired cells could be
replaced through stem cell therapy, then the person could walk again.
Lou Gehrig's disease, I remember my grandmother was tripping and
falling, and they did not know why. It took them quite awhile back,
this was a number of years ago, to determine she had Lou Gehrig's
disease. I remember as a teenager going to her bedside. She was
maintained in the home. She slowly deteriorated, losing first one
muscle function and then another. Finally, at the end, the only muscle
function she had remaining was the ability to blink her eyes. It was
once for yes and two for no, as I remember. She could not swallow and
had indicated she did not want to be force fed and ultimately she died
from starvation with this disease.
Well, anybody who has a friend or a relative that has gone through
that kind of experience has to be enthusiastic about the potential for
stem cell therapy. This was a number of years ago, but if it were
tomorrow or the day after tomorrow figuratively, maybe there could be
stem cell therapy for my grandmother, and she would not have to have
died at the relatively young age she died at.
Alzheimer's disease is another one. President Reagan died from
Alzheimer's disease. Victims do not even recognize their favorite loved
ones, have no memory and may wander outside and wander off.
There is a whole category of autoimmune diseases. I have a paper
which lists 63 of the autoimmune diseases. By that, I mean a disease
where the body gets confused as to what is the body and what is not the
body.
When we are developing as embryos in our mother's womb, there are
certain cells in our circulatory system called T-cells located in the
lymphatic tissue, and the T-cells are imprinted with who we are because
once we get out of the mother's womb, we are going to be in a hostile
environment, exposed to bacteria and viruses, and so it is important
that the body knows what it is so the defense mechanisms in the body
can be marshaled to eject the intruder.
These T-cells identify what is you and what is not you, and they
alert some of the specialized cells in our white blood cell system so
they are attracted to the site, and they eject, they may consume, they
eject the intruder.
There are 63 distinct autoimmune diseases. For some reason, the body
gets confused and the autoimmune system gets confused and starts
attacking your joints, for instance. We know that disease as arthritis.
I remember my first real introduction to this big list of autoimmune
diseases was a secretary I had, a very vibrant young lady whose life
was really, really changed because she had lupus. There are many
Americans who have family or friends who have lupus, and lupus was one
of the first autoimmune diseases that was discovered.
There is a controversy going on over the potential for embryonic stem
cell medical applications and adult stem cell medical applications. We
have been working for more than 3 decades with adult stem cells, and
our very able medical scientific community has been able to develop a
number of applications that can cure or at least lessen the severity of
disease using adult stem cells.
Since we have been working with embryonic stem cells for only a brief
period of time, we do not have any direct applications to medicine of
embryonic stem cell therapy, but that does not dim the enthusiasm of
the medical community because they believe that the potential there
ought to be greater.
But the real problem here is that up until this time the only way
that we can get embryonic stem cells is to destroy the embryo. The
scientists go into the inner cell mass stage. That is this stage here,
day five. Of course, what we are doing now in the laboratory is not
done in the uterus. All of this is done in a petri dish. The in vitro
is in glass. In vivo means life. The embryo is destroyed at the inner
cell mass stage, and cells are taken to produce a stem cell line.
About 4 years ago, this produced a real dilemma for the President
who, like all of us, has family and friends who have one or more of
these diseases that could be potentially ameliorated or cured by
embryonic stem cell application. Yet the President knew the only way we
were presently getting embryonic stem cell lines was by destroying
embryos. He, as I am, is a strong pro-life advocate and the President
had a problem with taking one life because that embryo produced in the
laboratory in surplus and in vitro fertilization had the potential when
implanted in a receptive mother to become a baby and the President's
problem was that he had a moral problem with taking one life with the
hope of helping another.
While the President was wrestling with this problem and what to do
about it, there was a briefing at the National Institutes of Health for
Members of the Congress and for their staff. I went out there to that
briefing.
As the next chart shows, when we were talking about the potential for
embryonic stem cell lines, I remembered my training of more than 50
years ago when I got my doctorate at the University of Maryland and had
a course in advanced embryology and then went on to teach medical
school for 4 years and postgraduate medicine doing basic research at
the National Institutes of Health. I remembered what everybody knows,
because they had the course in advanced embryology it was in my mind,
that whenever we have identical twins what has really happened is that
half of the cells have been taken from the early embryo. The half that
is taken becomes a perfectly normal baby, and the half that is left
becomes a perfectly normal baby.
Madam Speaker, one is a clone. When one thinks about cloning,
remember that Mother Nature or God, to whomever you want to subscribe
it, has been cloning for a very long time. Now these early embryos can
split either at the two-cell stage or at the inner cell mass stage or
anywhere in between, presumably.
We know at least at those two extremes because we can tell by how
they present at birth when they split. If they share an amnion, they
split at the two cell stage. If they have separate amnions, they
probably split at the inner cell mass stage.
So knowing that half of the cells could be taken away from an early
embryo without harming the embryo, unless you think identical twins are
somehow deficient, and I have talked with a number of identical twins,
and I have not talked with any of them who thought they were less a
person or deficient because half of the cells were taken away to
produce the other identical twin.
It occurred to me that you ought to be able to take cells from an
early embryo without hurting the embryo to develop a stem cell line
from that early embryo. I mentioned this to the researchers at NIH, and
they said, yes, that is theoretically possible to do that.
Just after that, I was at an event and the President was there and
when I went through the line, I mentioned my visit at NIH and the
response that they had given to my question. A few days later, I had a
call from Carl Rove and the President had turned the pursuit of this
suggestion over to Carl Rove. Carl told me that he talked to the people
at NIH, and they tell me what you have suggested is not possible.
Carl, I said either they are funning you or they misunderstand you,
because these are the same people that can take a single cell and take
the nucleus out of that cell and put another nucleus in it. That is
what they did with Dolly the sheep and the large number of clones that
have been produced since then.
I said, of course, if they can take the nucleus out of a cell and put
another nucleus in it, they can certainly take a cell or two out of
what is a relatively big embryo. So he went back and asked them again
and then called back and said they are still telling me they cannot do
that. So a few days later, the President came out with his executive
order.

[[Page H5730]]

Madam Speaker, you may remember this was kind of a decision like
Solomon might have made. Obviously, from the potential efficacy of
embryonic stem cell research and medical applications, it is very
desirable that we do that.
On the other hand, if the only way to get embryonic stem cells is by
destroying an embryo, then you are left with the quandary of, is it
really acceptable to destroy one life with the hope that you are going
to help another?
So the President came to a decision that I think represented great
wisdom. He recognized that a number of embryos had already been killed,
destroyed to establish stem cell lines, and since you cannot turn back
the hands of time to change that, these embryos were gone, the stem
cell lines were there, and so the President, recognizing the potential
for embryonic stem cell research, and being concerned that you should
not take one life with the hope of helping another, wisely I think,
said we could spend Federal dollars on any exploration we chose with
the existing stem cells lines, and he thought there were about 60.
There have never been 60, but he was told there were something like 60
stem cell lines, and Federal dollars could be used for research on
those lines, but no Federal dollars could be used for developing or
destroying any additional embryos for stem cell lines.

{time} 2130

This was about 4 years ago, and as we knew, the scientific community
knew, as I knew because of my background, these stem cell lines would
eventually run out. Stem cell lines, like people, age. For reasons that
we may not understand, they do not last forever. Those stem cell lines,
Madam Speaker, are running out. We now have, I think the accepted
figure is 22 stem cell lines left, and all of these are contaminated
with mouse feeder cells. This is the result of a technique which is
used to facilitate the replication of these cells in the tissue
culture, and they are now all contaminated with mouse feeder cells so
that although they are perfectly good for research and a lot of
research is being done, they are not good for medical application
because you would not want to put the cells contaminated with mouse
feeder cells in a human.
So what now? One of the potential solutions to this problem is
included in H.R. 810, the Castle-DeGette bill; and the argument made in
this bill is that there are about 400,000 surplus embryos out there
from in vitro fertilization. You see, to make sure that the doctor is
going to have a good embryo or two or three to implant in a mother,
because they do not all take, he will produce more embryos than he will
probably need. Then he will look at them under the microscope and pick
the strongest looking of those embryos and may put two or three or so
in the mother.
One of our Members, the Rohrabachers, are now the proud parents of
triplets from in vitro fertilization. All of them grew and so they are
now the proud parents of these very happy and healthy little babies.
Since there are 400,000 surplus embryos out there that are frozen, the
argument is, and this is the argument of the bill, that since these
embryos, at least many of these embryos, realistically most of these
embryos will ultimately be discarded, they will not stay frozen for 49
years there, they will not last forever, and by and by they will be
discarded, and so the argument is, why should medicine not benefit from
cells, from embryos that are going to be discarded anyhow? That to many
people is a compelling argument. It was a compelling argument to a
majority of people in the House, and now they are considering this bill
in the Senate.
But to those in the pro-life community, there is another way of
looking at these embryos. I am at the microscope and there is an embryo
under the microscope there. That embryo could become a snowflake baby.
More than 100 times parents who do not have an ovum, cannot get
pregnant any other way, have adopted these surplus embryos and we have
more than 100 of what we call snowflake babies. The embryo that I am
looking at under the microscope might be adopted and that could be any
one of the 400,000 embryos, and it might be the next Albert Einstein.
How could I destroy an embryo that might be adopted and might be the
next Albert Einstein? So this is the argument on the other side, which
is why the great debate over H.R. 810.
As a result of a series of discussions with the White House and with
a number of the interested groups, we have developed a bill which is
called H.R. 3144, the Respect for Life Pluripotent Stem Cell Act of
2005.
Madam Speaker, I will make this short bill a part of the Record.

H.R. 3144

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Respect for Life Pluripotent
Stem Cell Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds as follows:
(1) Stem cells may be derived from various sources,
including adult tissue, umbilical cord blood, and living
human embryos. The use of cells from embryos has drawn great
interest in the scientific community but also raises very
serious ethical concerns for many Americans, because as
practiced today it requires the destruction of human embryos
to obtain their cells.
(2) The President's Council on Bioethics in its May 2005
White Paper: ``Alternative Sources of Pluripotent Stem
Cells,'' describes several potential methods to derive stem
cells like those now derived through the destruction of
embryos, but which would not involve doing harm to embryos.
Some methods propose to involve embryos in ways that do not
harm them, while others propose to reprogram adult cells to
produce cells with the capabilities of embryonic stem cells
without producing or involving embryos at all.
(3) Such proposals should be thoroughly tested in animal
models before being applied to humans, to establish that they
do not involve creating or harming human embryos.
(4) Several scientific reports also suggest that some
subclasses of adult stem cells (derived from postnatal
tissues, umbilical cord blood and placenta) show a
flexibility comparable to that of stem cells now derived
through the destruction of embryos.
(5) American scientists should be encouraged to pursue all
ethical avenues of stem cell research and to explore morally
uncontroversial alternatives to research requiring the
destruction of human embryos.

SEC. 3. DERIVATION OF STEM CELLS WITHOUT HARMING EMBRYOS;
RESEARCH THROUGH NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH.

Part B of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C 284) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 409J. BASIC AND APPLIED RESEARCH ON DERIVATION AND USE
OF PLURIPOTENT STEM CELLS WITHOUT HARMING
EMBRYOS.

``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
``(1) Human embryo.--The term `human embryo' includes any
organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as
of the date of the enactment of the Respect for Life
Pluripotent Stem Cell Act of 2005, that is derived by
fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means
from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.
``(2) Pluripotent stem cell.--The term `pluripotent stem
cell' means a cell that can in principle be differentiated to
produce all or almost all the cell types of the human body,
and therefore has the same functional capacity as an
embryonic stem cell, regardless of whether it has the same
origin.
``(b) In General.--With respect to producing stem cell
lines for important biomedical research, the Director of NIH
shall, through the appropriate national research institutes,
provide for the conduct and support of basic and applied
research in isolating, deriving and using pluripotent stem
cells without creating or harming human embryos. Such
research may include--
``(1) research in animals to develop and test techniques
for deriving cells from embryos without doing harm to those
embryos;
``(2) research to develop and test techniques for producing
human pluripotent stem cells without creating or making use
of embryos; and
``(3) research to isolate, develop and test pluripotent
stem cells from postnatal tissues, umbilical cord blood, and
placenta.
``(c) Prohibitions Regarding Harm to Human Embryos.--
Research under subsection (b) may not include any research
that--
``(1) involves the use of human embryos; or
``(2) involves the use of stem cells not otherwise eligible
for funding by the National Institutes of Health; or
``(3) involves the use of any stem cell to create or to
attempt to create a human embryo, or
``(4) poses a significant risk of creating a human embryo
by any means.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this section, there are authorized to be
appropriated $15,000,000 in fiscal year 2006, and such sums
as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2007 through
2010. Such authorization is in addition to other
authorizations of appropriations that are available for such
purpose.''.

Mr. BARTLETT. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey)
has joined us. I would like to yield to him before I go through the
history of how we got to this bill
and the people we talked to

[[Page H5731]]

and exactly what is in the bill. I thank the gentleman for joining us.
Mr. GINGREY. I certainly thank the gentleman from Maryland for
yielding. It is indeed a pleasure to again be with him tonight, Madam
Speaker. Any opportunity that I have as an original cosponsor of the
gentleman from Maryland's legislation, H.R. 3144, is an opportunity
that I gladly accept no matter what the hour. The importance of this
issue really cannot be overstated.
I know the gentleman from Maryland as he started this Special Order
hour discussed the fact that of the so-called throwaway embryos,
throwaway babies as we see it in these in vitro fertilization clinics
that exist across this country, I think somebody estimated there were
400,000 of them and that in some instances couples who had gone through
in vitro fertilization and completed their families truly would have
some extra embryos that they at least at a certain point in time had no
intention of having reimplanted. So for the time being, maybe they were
excess embryos.
But those of us who feel very strongly about the sanctity of life
truly believe that there is no such thing as an excess human life at
either extreme, the very youngest embryonic stage or the very oldest,
many of whom I would be referring to, our octogenarians and older who
might be in a nursing home suffering from Alzheimer's disease at the
final stages of their lives, but all of these lives are extremely
important; and as the gentleman from Maryland pointed out, there are
actually 100 or close to 100 little babies, up to 6, 8 months old now
who were referred to as the snowflake babies. They actually were
donated to couples who were barren, infertile, from these couples who
had completed their family and had these excess embryos frozen that
they were not going to use.
We have seen them. I think the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett)
had a lot to do with bringing, along with the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), these little children to the House, to the
Congress, and indeed to the White House during the week that we were
debating the bill brought to us by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr.
Castle) and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
As the gentleman from Maryland points out, there are a lot more of
those little lives that are still on ice, if you will; and the
gentleman from Maryland is so right in pointing out that, hey, maybe
one of those would be an Einstein one of these days, the next Einstein.
Some of my colleagues say, well, just 100 out of 400,000, that is not
very many. Indeed, it is a fourth of this body, Madam Speaker, almost a
fourth of 435 Members of the House of Representatives. There may be
some real smart ones remaining on ice that possibly could end up being
United States Senators. More importantly, of course, it could be the
next Pope John II or Pope John III or Martin Luther King, Jr. or
Abraham Lincoln. Who is to say what we are talking about as a throwaway
life? I am just so grateful for the gentleman from Maryland for
bringing us a bill, H.R. 3144, which avoids this issue of destroying
human life for the purpose of obtaining embryonic stem cells.
I do not think, Madam Speaker, that we will ever get to the point in
this Chamber, as much as I, and I am sure the gentleman from Maryland
is of the same mind-set, of wanting to do things in a bipartisan
fashion with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this issue,
this pro-life/pro-choice issue. The country is probably pretty evenly
divided. This body is probably evenly divided.
But the point is we do not have to get into a knockdown, drag-out,
hair-pulling, fingernail-scratching bloodbath over this issue. That is
what the gentleman from Maryland is bringing to us, an opportunity to
support a bill that does not lead us down that road where there seems
like there will never be a meeting of the minds. This opportunity,
basically, as he is pointing out with his posters in regard to the
ability, with some research, to be able to obtain embryonic stem cells
without destroying human life, without destroying the embryo, I have
heard him refer to this almost like an embryonic biopsy.
As I understand the bill, it is an opportunity to encourage, with the
President's blessing, increased funding through the NIH for research on
nonhuman primates to make sure that this biopsy, actually it has
already been done in genetic counseling studies on couples who have a
really strong family history of inheritable diseases, something like
hemophilia or Duchenne's muscular dystrophy where maybe if it is an
adult child, it has a 50 percent chance of having one of these life-
threatening, eventually fatal diseases. We are already doing testing on
those embryos to make sure that it would be safe to put them back into
the mother's womb to grow and develop and become a full-term fetus and
there has been no harm in those instances.
This is not wild-eyed science, something that is Star Wars mentality.
Not at all. We are talking about one of the brightest Members of this
body, a Ph.D. physiologist, a doctor of physiology who has taught in
medical school.
Madam Speaker, when I was in medical school, it was my instructor who
taught me physiology, the functioning of the human body in a healthy
situation, whether we are talking about the heart, the lungs, or any
organ system of the body. That is the study of physiology. That is who
we are talking about when we reference this Member, the gentleman from
Maryland, who is bringing us this bill. He knows of what he speaks. He
has taught not only physiology but also embryology.
I know my colleagues as they listen to his presentation tonight and
they look at the material, the visual aides that he has with him, it is
clear that his understanding, his depth of knowledge is far beyond
maybe what even the physician Members of this body have. So it is with
a deep amount of respect for him that I have signed on to this bill. I
am fully supportive of it. It gives us an opportunity to address this
issue of trying to find a way with stem cells, whether they are adult
or embryonic; and I tend to agree with the gentleman from Maryland that
embryonic stem cells probably do have a little more potential, although
we have had great success in adult stem cells and a lot of these
diseases that our colleagues have talked about and we have seen public
service advertisements, famous people, actors, former politicians, a
former first lady, families of those suffering from diabetes, spinal
cord injury, degenerative disease, Parkinsonism, Alzheimer's. These
things really tear at your heartstrings.
There is no argument, I do not think, in this body, in a partisan way
about wanting to help and wanting to use science to the best of our
ability to look for a cure. There is not a guarantee. There is
absolutely no guarantee. There are probably lots of complications,
false starts, two steps back for one step forward. There will be lots
of money, Federal dollars probably being spent on research. But the
point is the President in August of 2001 was absolutely right, in my
humble opinion, in regard to his decision to put a moratorium on the
harvesting of stem cells, embryonic stem cells that would result in the
destruction of human life. At that point, there were some 60 cell lines
already in existence that our university research scientists at NIH and
other places were using. The President said, that is perfectly okay to
continue.

{time} 2145

Those lives have already been destroyed in obtaining those stem cell
lines. Good research was occurring. The President, this President,
George W. Bush, is the very first President that, in fact, allowed
Federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells. So those who
criticize or suggest, Madam Speaker, that this President is insensitive
and uncaring, I suggest to my colleagues that this President is the
most caring that we have ever had in regard to this issue. He has done
more than any other President. He does not deserve to be criticized,
but rather applauded for his efforts in this regard.
And I think he is steadfast in his determination not to destroy human
life because, as the gentleman from Maryland has pointed out and as I
just said, we do not know those so-called extra embryos, those
throwaway embryos. We do not know what those lives entail. We do know
that they have a very unique, full complement of DNA that have all of
their genetic material they are going to ever have. They are the

[[Page H5732]]

tiniest of human life, little tiny babies. We call them embryos, but
they are little tiny embryos whose lives are frozen and suspended. But
they should have that opportunity.
And even the couples who think, Madam Speaker, that they would never
use those embryos, we have witnessed tragedies every day in the news,
this 24-hour cable news that we are subjected to, but we read about
children that are kidnapped, abused, murdered, the situation in Aruba,
the situation in Nebraska. We can just name so many where people think
that their family is complete and they have got all they want out of
their reproductive life, and all of a sudden, as the old country song
goes, ``some days are diamonds and some days are stones,'' all of a
sudden we have a few days that are stones and there might be a tragic
loss of a child or more than one child, and all of a sudden maybe those
frozen embryos do not seem so expendable anymore.
So that is why this issue is so important and why I feel so very
passionate, not just myself and the author of this bill, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), but a number of others who have signed on
to this bill. The White House, I think, is very supportive of this.
There is a companion piece of legislation, as I understand; it
originating in the other body. We are on to something here.
And again it is a pleasure to join my colleague tonight and share
these thoughts, try to maybe enlighten my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle, Madam Speaker; and I do thank the gentleman for giving me an
opportunity to be with him to discuss such an important issue. And I
will be glad to stick around for a little while if we want to get into
a colloquy later on, but I thank him for giving me this opportunity.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want
to thank my colleague very much for his comments. He is very generous.
I did not come to the Congress, and that was 13 years ago, until I was
66 years old; and I am very fortunate to have some prior life
experiences that have permitted me to understand some opportunities
here in the Congress that might not have been so obvious to others who
did not have this background.
After the President came down with his executive order, I continued
to meet with the folks at NIH, and I subsequently learned, by the way,
I need to come back to that problem with Karl Rove and his discussion
with the NIH people, and this was a typical example of failed
communications. And so often we think that we are carrying on a
dialogue and we are really carrying on simultaneous monologues.
However it happened, what the NIH people were telling Karl Rove was
that they were not sure that they could make a stem cell line from an
embryo that early. That is true. That is why in our bill we advocate
animal model research rather than beginning with humans. But there is
no reason we should not be able to do that.
Now, as a matter of fact, a Russian scientist working in this
country, Verlinsky, says he has, in fact, done that. I have met a
number of times with people from NIH. On July 20 of last year, for
instance, we had an extended meeting in my office with representatives
from NIH, with representatives from Health and Human Services, and with
representatives from the White House.
And then, Madam Speaker, a very interesting thing happened while we
were having this series of meetings with the NIH and HHS and the White
House and with the outside groups. There appeared in the literature a
paper, a very interesting paper, on preimplantation genetic diagnosis.
And what these medical people were doing, and this was in England, the
first paper came from a clinic in England, what they were doing was
going into the eight-cell stage and taking a cell or two out to do a
preimplantation genetic diagnosis to see if the baby would have a
genetic defect. And if there was no genetic defect, they implanted the
remaining seven cells, sometimes six cells. And more than 600 times
that went on to produce a perfectly normal baby. That is now being done
in this country just outside Washington, in Virginia. A few weeks ago I
spent probably a half hour or more on the phone with two of the medical
scientists there who were involved in this research.
There is one potential ethical problem here, although the President's
Council on Bioethics thinks it is not a problem. I would like to avoid,
Madam Speaker, even the possibility of a problem. And that problem is
that the cell that we take from that embryo might, under the right
circumstances, become an embryo itself. The members of the President's,
and I have the white paper here I am going to refer to in just a
moment, Council on Bioethics think that that is not feasible. But,
Madam Speaker, if we were to wait just a little later to take the cell
to the inner cell mass, and I probably ought to put that chart of the
uterus back up here so that I can point to what I am referring to here,
in the laboratory they are going at the eight-cell stage and taking a
cell or two out and doing a preimplantation genetic diagnosis.
If there is no genetic defect, they implant the remaining cells, and
more than 1,000 times worldwide now, they have had a normal baby born.
The argument is that that cell they take out under the right
circumstances is pluripotent, totipotent at that stage probably, and
could produce another embryo. To avoid that, if we just wait until the
inner cell mass stage, which is the stage from which the embryonic stem
cell lines are now developed when they destroy the embryo, there is no
reason they cannot go into this inner cell mass and through the
trophoblast and they could take out several cells then because there
are a lot of cells there.
By that time we already have some differentiation. The cells in the
inner cell mass are going to produce the baby. The three germ layers
that we talked about at the very beginning and the cells in the
trophoblast are going to produce the decidua. The decidua is the amnion
and chorion, the tissues that support the baby, and we can see those
starting to develop down here in day 8 and 9 when the embryo has
attached itself to the wall of the uterus and the uterus grows and
produces some tissues and there is a growth of this decidua here and we
have the placenta, these big opposing vascular bags through which food
and oxygen and CO2 and hormones and so forth are exchanged
between the baby and the mother.
By the way, Madam Speaker, this is a pretty hazardous journey; and we
do not know the exact percentage, but maybe less than half of all of
the ova here that get fertilized actually implant in the uterus. As a
matter of fact, one of the techniques for preventing conception is an
IUD. They simply place a foreign object here in the uterus, and the
uterus reacts to the presence of that foreign by not permitting the
fertilized egg, the embryo, to implant there.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I wanted to mention to the gentleman that
as an OB/GYN physician, of course I have had some experience with some
of the processes that can occur in reproductive endocrine laboratories
and the technique dealing with infertile couples, and I have had a
discussion with the gentleman from Maryland about this. But in a
situation where the couple is infertile and it is because of male
infertility, there is nothing wrong with the egg, but there is a very,
very low sperm count in the male, and normally it takes probably 1,000
sperm to successfully fertilize an egg in the natural way.
In fact, the normal sperm count in a male is about 60 million. But
even a sperm count as low as 1,000, pregnancy can occur in the normal,
natural way. But when it gets much lower than that, it becomes less and
less possible. But they have a technique. And there is an acronym,
Madam Speaker. There is an acronym for everything, it seems, even
though this is not in the military. That acronym is ICSI. It stands for
intracytoplasmic sperm injection, ICSI. And these biologists working
with reproductive endocrinologists, medical doctors who specialize in
infertility, can literally take a single sperm and with a needle inject
that sperm into the egg and create a life, and that has been done many
times, and not just at the NIH, but in a lot of these infertility
clinics across this great country, in my State of Georgia. It is
something that is done routinely.
So what the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) is talking about

[[Page H5733]]

in this poster presentation in regard to waiting to just the right
point for these scientists to be able to develop a technique to obtain
embryonic stem cells without destroying that embryo and beyond the
point where that single cell itself would be an embryo, he knows of
what he speaks. And I wanted to have an opportunity to share that,
Madam Speaker, with our colleagues and make sure they understand that
here again we are not talking about Star Wars technology here. We are
talking about things that are being done today.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank
the gentleman very much for that contribution.
While we are carrying on these discussions with the White House and
NIH and HHS and with the outside groups, the President's Council on
Bioethics submits a white paper; and in this white paper they go over
four potential techniques that might produce pluripotent stem cells,
which is another way of saying the equivalent of embryonic stem cells,
without destroying or harming an embryo. And what our bill does, Madam
Speaker, is simply ask NIH to please explore these potentials, first of
all, in animal models; and the bill gives them $15 million to begin
this exploration.
I just wanted to spend just a moment talking about the four things
that are in here because it may be of interest to a number of people.
The first is called pluripotent stem cells derived from organismically
dead embryos. Well, this says that all these embryos I had mentioned
earlier, all these embryos will not live. And when an embryo is
moribund, it is not going to divide anymore, then it is the equivalent
of a brain dead person and there should be no problem taking cells from
it like they would take organs from a brain dead person.
One might have a little question about the vitality of the cell they
take from that embryo, but at least ethically if the embryo is dead or
moribund, the equivalent of a brain dead person, they could take an
embryo from it. The second procedure, and the next chart shows a little
clip from that, is one in which, down at the bottom here, it says ``a
similar idea was proposed by Representative Roscoe Bartlett.'' This was
my recommendation in 2001. And this simply says they go into an early
embryo, as I have mentioned, and take out a cell without hurting the
embryo because mother nature or God, whoever people think makes
identical twins, has been doing this for a very long time.
Our bill simply asks the NIH to do this in animal models to make sure
that it is safe and efficacious.
A third technique is called pluripotent stem cells derived from
biological artifacts. This is an interesting one. And what the proposal
there is that they take an ovum and they take the nucleus out of the
ovum and then they take an altered nucleus out of a somatic cell.

{time} 2200

You alter the nucleus so that you have turned off some of the genes,
and then you put that nucleus inside the egg. Now, why would you do
that? Because in the cytoplasm of the egg outside the nucleus of the
egg, there are some factors which turn on and turn off genes and kind
of control what happens inside the nucleus. So now they have turned off
some genes so this thing will divide; that will never be a baby because
they have kind of messed up the genetics. Well, if they can never be a
baby, then maybe ethically you can take stem cells from it, and this is
something that really needs to be explored.
These several techniques are all open for investigation. Oh, the
fourth one of these is pluripotent stem cells by differentiation. I
mentioned the differentiation of cells. That is when they decide that
they are going to be just this or that, and all the cells they produce
after that are just that kind of cell. Now, sometimes, you can take a
cell and kind of put it in an environment where you have confused it,
you have shocked it, you have done something to it, so it forgets what
it was supposed to be, and it starts making cells, tissues that it
would not ordinarily make in that stage of differentiation. So what our
bill does is to permit the research, particularly on two of these, the
nucleus transfer and the taking of cells from the early blastomere.
Our bill has received input from the White House, from the Conference
of Catholic Bishops, from Right the Life communities, so there is a
broad spectrum of individuals and organizations out there that are
supportive of what we are doing.
In the few moments left, Madam Speaker, I would like to note that
there have been a plethora of articles very recently about this, and I
would like to submit these for the Record. They are not very long, and
I will insert them into the Record. Here is National Geographic, July
2005. Stem cells, a big article, very good article on stem cells there.
Here is a letter of May of this year from Dr. Battey who is the chief
spokesman for stem cell research at the National Institutes of Health
who is quite supportive of our bill and what we propose to do, and here
is a very interesting op-ed piece written by Richard Doerflinger who
represents the Catholic Bishops.
By the way, I need to give credit where credit is due. It was Richard
Doerflinger who made the great suggestion that the first thing you do
with that cell you take from the early embryo is to create a repair kit
so that all during the life of that person, they will have frozen the
ability to produce a new liver if they need it, islets of Langerhans,
spinal cord cells, whatever they need. There is a great op-ed piece by
Richard Doerflinger who explains his support for our bill. He says,
Representative Bartlett and his colleagues are helping to demonstrate
what has always been true: science and ethics were meant to be allies,
not enemies, and this is certainly true.
Tuesday, July 12, Associated Press, Lawmakers Wary of Backup Stem
Cell Bill. For those who would like to see just the Castle-DeGette bill
passed, our bill, and the President, by the way, says that if that
other bill gets to his desk, he will veto it. For those of us who
believe that we really ought to research stem cells, we really look
forward to a bill which the President can support.
Stem Cell Legislation is At Risk, July 9, Washington Post. GOP Probes
Nondestructive Cell Research, Washington AP, June 29. And then just
today, in Congressional Quarterly, Congress Considers Numerous Stem
Cell Bills. It mentions our bill in the House, and that Bill Frist is
expected to draft a related bill in the Senate.
I am very pleased, Madam Speaker, that my background has permitted me
to understand some of the potential here, my experience with my
grandmother, with these little diabetic kids, my profound pro-life
commitment. I am very pleased that I was able to propose a potential
solution that I think meets the morals and the demands of both sides of
this issue.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the following
articles:

Department of Health

and Human Services,

Bethesda, Maryland, May 23, 2005.
Hon. Roscoe G. Bartlett,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Bartlett: I am pleased that Drs. Allen Spiegel and
Story Landis were able to meet with you, Mr. Otis and Mr.
Aitken during your visit to the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) last month to discuss ways to derive human embryonic
stem cells (hESCs). Drs. Spiegel and Landis were serving as
Acting Co-Chairs of the NIH Stem Cell Task Force during my
leave of absence from this position. Earlier this month, I
returned to chair the Task Force. NIH shares your enthusiasm
on the therapeutic potentials of hESC research and thank you
for your continued support of this field.
Drs. Spiegel and Landis briefed me about your April 26th
meeting. I am also aware that you have had previous meetings
with NIH officials, including myself, Lana Skirboll and
Richard Tasca, on this topic. You propose the possibility of
using a cell (or two) removed from the 8-cell stage human
embryo undergoing preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to:
(1) create a ``personal repair kit'' made up of cells removed
from the embryo and stored for future use; and (2) for
deriving human embryonic stem cell lines.
You suggested that creating hESC lines in this manner would
avoid ethical questions surrounding the fate of a human
embryo. Live births resulting from embryos which undergo PGD
and are subsequently implanted seem to suggest that this
procedure does not harm the embryo, however, there are some
reports that a percentage of embryos do not survive this
procedure. In addition, long-term studies would be needed to
determine whether this procedure produces subtle or later-
developing injury to children

[[Page H5734]]

born following PGD. Also, it is not known if the single cell
removed from the 8-cell stage human embryo has the capacity
to become an embryo if cultured in the appropriate
environment.
NIH is not aware of any published scientific data that has
confirmed the establishment of hESC lines from a single cell
removed from an 8-cell stage embryo. We are aware of the
published research of Dr. Yury Verlinsky in the Reproductive
Genetics Institute in Chicago that showed that a hESC line
can be derived by culturing a human morula-staged embryo
(Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 2004 Vo. 9, No. 6, 623-629,
Verlinsky, Strelchenko, et al). It is also worth noting,
however, that in these experiments, the entire morula was
plated and used to derive the hESC lines. The human morula is
generally composed of 10-30 cells and is the stage that
immediately precedes the formation of the blastocyst.
At the April 26th meeting, NIH agreed that such experiments
might be pursued in animals, including non-human primates.
That is, animal experiments could be conducted to determine
whether it is possible to derive hESCs from a single cell of
the 8-cell or morula stage embryo. To date, to the best of
our knowledge no such derivations have been successful. NIH
also does not know whether these experiments have been tried
and failed in animals and/or humans and, therefore, have not
been reported in the literature. NIH agreed to explore
whether there have been any attempts to use single cells from
the 8-cell or morula stage of an animal embryo to start
embryonic stem cell lines by consulting with scientists that
are currently conducting embryo research. From these
discussions, these scientists believe it is worth attempting
experiments using a single cell from an early stage embryo or
cells from a morula of a non-human primate to establish an
embryonic stem cell line.
Of note, a recent 2003 paper from Canada shows that when
single human blastomeres are cultured from early cleavage
stage embryos, before the morula stage, that there is an
increased incidence of chromosomal abnormalities. Even with
hESCs derived from the inner cell mass of the human
blastocyst, the odds of starting a hESC line from a single
cell are long, perhaps one in 20 tries. Thus, the odds of
being able to start with a single cell from an 8-celled or
morula staged embryo are equally challenging. This would make
it difficult to accomplish the goal of establishing ``repair
kits'' and hESC lines from any single PGD embryo. (Fertil
Steril, 2003 June, 79(6):1304-11, Bielanska, et al). It is
possible, however, that improvements in technologies for
deriving and culturing hESCs may improve these odds.
NIH concludes that the possibility of establishing a stem
cell line from an 8-cell or morula stage embryo can only be
determined with additional research. NIH would welcome
receiving an investigator-initiated grant application on this
topic using animal embryos. The Human Embryo Research Ban
would preclude the use of funds appropriated under the Labor/
HHS Appropriations Act for pursuing this research with human
embryos. As with all grant applications, the proposal must be
deemed meritorious for funding by peer review and then will
be awarded research funds if sufficient funds are available.
It also bears keeping in mind that it may take years to
determine the answer.
At the April 26th meeting, you had mentioned that twins can
develop when the inner cell mass splits in the blastocyst and
forms two embryos enclosed in a common trophoblast. You asked
if cells from the inner cell mass could be safely removed
without harming the embryo. In animal studies, it has been
shown that the blastocyst can be pierced to remove cells of
the inner cell mass and the embryo appears to retain its
original form but it is not known whether the embryo will
result in the birth of a healthy baby. Since this experiment
in human embryos at either the morula or the blastocyst stage
would require evaluations of not only normal birth but also
unknown long term risks to the person even into adulthood, it
would have to be considered a very high risk and ethically
questionable endeavor. Because of the risk of harm, this
research would also be ineligible for Federal funding.
You had also asked NIH about the latest stage in
development that an embryo can be artificially implanted into
the womb. We know that infertility clinics transfer embryos
at the blastocyst stage (approximately Day 5 in human embryo
development) as well as at earlier stages.
Finally, I am providing an additional resource that was
discussed at the April meeting. I have enclosed a copy of a
recently released white paper developed by the President's
Council on Bioethics (PCB) on Alternative Sources of Human
Pluripotent Stem Cells. In this white paper, the PCB raised
many ethical, scientific and practical concerns about
alternate sources for deriving human pluripotent stem cells
without harming the embryo. Your proposal is specifically
discussed in this report.
I hope this information is helpful.
Sincerely,
James F. Battey, Jr., M.D., Ph.D.,
Chairman, NIH Stem Cell Task Force and Director, National
Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders.
____

[From the News Observer, June 29, 2005]

GOP Probes Non-Destructive Cell Research

(By Laurie Kellman)

Washington (AP).--Embryonic stem cell research that doesn't
destroy budding human life? Right now, it's possible only in
theory, or on animals. But those alternatives to the most
promising stem cell science are enough to win the attention
of anti-abortion Republicans and President Bush.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and other GOP lawmakers
are considering legislation drawn from a report in May by
Bush's Council on Bioethics, which studied research that
might carry medical promise but is in its infancy.
In some cases, the research is ethically objectionable, the
panel wrote. Nonetheless, it said four types of studies
``deserve the nation's careful and serious consideration.''
Bush was receptive to funding the theoretical approaches
rather than medically more promising research that destroys
embryo, three lawmakers who have discussed the subject with
him told The Associated Press.
``There was a sense around the table that if we could
discover a way to extract the stem cells without destroying
the embryo, that that was something that nearly everyone
could support,'' said Representative David Dreier, R-Calif.,
who discussed the option with Bush at a White House meeting
earlier this month. ``The president was very enthusiastic
about that. He clearly supported it.''
Another possible compromise, being drafted by
Representative Roscoe Bartlett, R-MD., a biological engineer,
would send $15 million to the National Institutes of Health
for stem cell research on animal embryos, according to a
draft obtained by the AP.
``Congressman Bartlett sought and received technical
assistance from the administration to ensure that the bill
that he is working on would be consistent with the
president's principles and goals,'' said Lisa Wright,
Bartlett's spokeswoman.
Bush has repeatedly said he would veto a bill the House
passed last month backing standard embryonic stem cell
research and any similar version by the Senate, which is
expected to turn to the issue in July.
``We'll probably consider a number of bills,'' Frist told
the AP.
Senator Rick Santorum, R-Pa., who also attended the meeting
with Bush, said he may try to amend one of Congress' must-
pass spending bills to provide federal money for specific
studies outlined in the bioethics council's report.
Senator Gordon Smith, R-Ore., said that in his own talk
with Bush, he found the president ``looking for a way to stay
within his ethical boundaries.''
Almost two-thirds of Americans say they support embryonic
stem cell research and a majority of people say they would
like to see fewer restrictions on taxpayer funding for those
studies, according to recent polling.
The proposal may free senators from a tight spot between
Bush's veto threat and public pressure for embryonic stem
cell research, which has shown promise in the search for
cures for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and other diseases.
But it also would spend millions of dollars on studies
whose value is speculative. Some of the techniques have not
even been attempted in animals.
Frist, who is a heart and lung transplant surgeon, told the
AP at least three of the processes on the bioethics council's
list met his criteria for funding embryonic stem cell
research.
``All of the research you have there stops short of the
creation of an embryo for experimental purposes, and short of
destruction of an embryo for experimental purposes,'' he
said. ``That is the direction I think we should explore.''
Those are the same boundaries set out by Bush, who in a
2001 executive order prohibited federal funding of any
research using human embryonic stem cells harvested after
Aug. 9 of that year.
Senator Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, a chief supporter of
traditional embryonic stem cell research, shrugged at the
notion of an alternative.
``Most of these ideas are nothing but theories. They
haven't been tested,'' he said Wednesday.
The processes studied by the council could theoretically
develop embryonic stem cell lines--which can develop into any
cell in the body--without harming the embryo. They would:
--Derive stem cells from technically dead embryos. When
embryos frozen during in-vitro fertilization are thawed, some
never resume dividing and thus are discarded. No one knows
whether scientists could find healthy stem cells inside an
embryo already so damaged that it wouldn't grow, or coax them
to live when transferred out of that embryo.
--Extract stem cells from two-day-old embryos using a non-
lethal biopsy technique. Until now, most stem cells have been
culled from embryos that contain 100 or so cells. However, in
vitro fertilization clinics frequently extract one cell,
called a blastomere, from a younger, eight-celled embryo to
perform genetic testing--to tell, for instance, whether some
embryos will have a disease like cystic fibrosis. This
testing doesn't destroy the embryo, so women can choose to
have only healthy ones implanted. According to one report,
more than 1,000 healthy children have been born after
blastomere testing. The questions are whether enough stem

[[Page H5735]]

cells could be culled from a single blastomere to be
worthwhile, and which embryos would be used.
--Develop stem cells derived from specially engineered
tissue. One such technique is called ``altered nuclear
transfer,'' essentially cloning in a way that grows only
tissue, not an actual embryo. This process hasn't been
attempted yet.
--Turning back the clock on older cells so they again become
``pluripotent,'' the scientific term for the ability to turn
into any tissue. Scientists already are trying to do this to
some degree through ``adult stem cell'' research, such as
turning blood-making cells into cells that produce liver or
muscle tissues. It's not clear whether older cells can be
returned to an embryonic state.
____

[From the Guardian, July 12, 2005]

Lawmakers Wary of Backup Stem Cell Bill

(By Laurie Kellman)

Washington (AP).--President Bush and his conservative
Senate allies are trying to peel votes from a stem cell bill
by offering alternative legislation that would instead fund
promising but unproven studies, several senators said
Tuesday.
``I'm all for these alternative sources, (but) not as a
substitute, not as some way of stopping what we're about to
do,'' said Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, Senate sponsor of a bill
already passed by the House that would end Bush's 2001 ban on
federal funding for new human embryonic stem cell studies.
Several scientists testifying Tuesday before the Labor,
Health and Human Services Appropriations subcommittee agreed
that Harkin's bill, cosponsored by panel Chairman Arlen
Specter, R-Pa., should be passed before even their own
research receives federal funding.
``It's a no-brainer,'' said Robert Lanza, one of the
scientists working on a process by which embryonic stem cells
are derived without destroying life. ``I do not think we
should keep the scientific community or the patient community
waiting.''
Another scientist at the table, William B. Hurlbut of
Stanford University, said vital science that could someday
lead to cures of diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's
must have the engine of public consensus behind it.
A member of the President's Council on Bioethics, Hurlbut
noted that large sections of the public believe human
embryonic stem cell research is immoral because it destroys
the embryo, which many, including Bush and some congressional
conservatives, consider a budding human life. Government, he
said, should set ``a coherent moral platform to guide our
science.''
But staring down a self-imposed Aug. 1 deadline for voting
on the legislation, Senate negotiators were no closer Tuesday
to agreeing on a list of bills to debate on the Senate floor.
Still swirling were talks over a six-bill package of
legislation, including the Harkin-Specter measure, and others
that would fund alternative methods or ban certain stem cell
and cloning techniques altogether.
Specter, a cancer patient also helming the fight over
Supreme Court nominations, said he was growing impatient with
the delay and made clear that his bill is the first priority.
``If we can pass the House bill, Specter-Harkin, that is
the most important bill to be enacted,'' Specter said as he
gaveled open the Labor, Health and Human Services
subcommittee hearing.
Testifying were James Battey, chairman of the National
Institutes of Health Stem Cell Task Force, and Lanza, who has
done research into deriving stem cells from a single animal
cell without destroying the embryo.
The House approved the Harkin-Specter bill, 238-194, on May
24. That is far less than the two-thirds support that would
be needed to override a veto Bush has threatened, and it was
unclear that either house of Congress had the two-thirds vote
necessary to override a veto.
The bill numbers are H.R. 810 and S. 471.
____

[From the Life Issues Forum, June 30, 2005]

Stem Cells Without Embryos?

(By Richard M. Doerflinger)

The battle lines of the stem cell debate have become
familiar.
In one corner we have embryonic stem cells, obtained by
destroying one-week-old human embryos. The cells are
``pluripotent,'' capable of producing all the 210 cell types
in the human body. In the other corner are stem cells
obtained harmlessly from adult tissues, umbilical cord blood
and placentas. These pose no ethical problem, but supposedly
are more limited.
Herein lies the alleged tension between science and ethics.
We can cure devastating diseases, or respect embryonic human
life, but not both.
That dichotomy has always been misleading. Embryonic stem
cells are far from curing any disease, while adult and
umbilical cord blood stem cells have helped many thousands of
patients. Yet scientists still claim that cells obtained by
destroying early human life have special advantages that
cannot be duplicated.
This claim is about to be tested.
Just before Congress's July 4 recess, Representative Roscoe
Bartlett (R-MD) introduced the ``Respect for Life Pluripotent
Stem Cell Act.'' It instructs the National Institutes of
Health to fund research in obtaining ``pluripotent'' stem
cells without creating or harming human embryos.
Mr. Bartlett knows whereof he speaks. He holds a Ph.D. in
physiology, and bases his proposal on a report by the
President's Council on Bioethics and the latest research
findings.
His bill outlines two ways to get pluripotent stem cells
without harming embryos. One is to remove the cells from
embryos without harming or destroying them. The bill would
fund such efforts in animal embryos, to see if this can be
safe enough to consider doing in humans.
The other approach would produce embryo-like stem cells
without creating embryos at all. A dozen studies now indicate
that umbilical cord blood and adult tissues contain stem
cells that may be as versatile as embryonic stem cells. In
addition, cutting-edge research suggests that adult cells can
be ``reprogrammed'' in several ways into pluripotent stem
cells.
One avenue is dubbed ``ANT-OAR''--altered nuclear transfer
by oocyte assisted reprogramming.
``Nuclear transfer'' is the cloning method that made Dolly
the sheep. The nucleus of a body cell is combined with an egg
deprived of its own nucleus. Signals in the egg activate a
much wider range of genes in that nucleus, so it no longer
directs one specialized type of cell but begins the
development of a whole new organism. What if the egg and the
body cell were altered in advance so that, from the
beginning, the result is not a one-celled embryo, but a
pluripotent stem cell like those now obtained by destroying
embryos?
There are good scientific reasons to believe this can be
done. And many Catholic scientists and ethicists have
declared that it can and should be explored (see
www.eppc.org/news/newsid.2375/news_detail. asp).
It would be good news indeed if modern science ends up
resolving some moral dilemmas that an irresponsible use of
science has created. Representative Bartlett and his
colleagues are helping to demonstrate what has always been
true: science and ethics were meant to be allies, not
enemies.
____

[From the Washington Post, July 9, 2005]

Stem Cell Legislation is at Risk

(By Ceci Connolly and Rick Weiss)

Promising but still unproven new approaches to creating
human embryonic stem cells have suddenly jeopardized what
once appeared to be certain Senate passage of a bill to
loosen President Bush's four-year-old restrictions on human
embryo research.
The techniques are enticing to many conservative activists
and scientists because they could yield medically valuable
human embryonic stem cells without the creation or
destruction embryos.
Embryonic stem cells are coveted because they have the
capacity to become virtually every kind of body tissue and
perhaps repair ailing organs, but they are controversial
because days-old human embryos must be destroyed to retrieve
them.
``The new science that may involve embryo research but not
require destruction of an embryo is tremendously exciting,''
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said recently.
``It would get you outside of the boundaries of the ethical
constraints.''
But because the value of these new scientific methods
remains speculative, they have complicated the political
calculus in the highly partisan Senate, which could take up
the issue as early as next week.
Proponents of embryonic stem cell research are divided over
how strongly to promote the new work because of fears it will
undermine efforts to expand federal funding of conventional
embryo research, which they say has better odds of success.
But some opponents of embryo research are uncomfortable
with the emerging alternatives, too. That is because they
involve cells that closely resemble human embryos, raising
novel questions about what, exactly, is a human life.
The science poses a strategic dilemma for both groups:
Should they support newly circulating legislation that would
fund the new methods or try to defeat what some decry as a
Trojan horse?
``This is something that could be very valuable if it
works, no doubt about it,'' Stanford University stem cell
researcher Irving Weissman said of the new work. ``But don't
tell me we should stop doing [embryo] research until we find
out, because people's lives are at stake.''
In May, the House easily passed bipartisan legislation
allowing federally funded scientists to study stem cells
derived from some of the thousands of human embryos destined
for disposal at fertility clinics--a significant expansion of
the Bush policy. Until this week, Senators Arlen Specter
(R-Pa.) and Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) expressed confidence
that they had more than enough votes to pass the same bill
in the Senate, despite threats of a presidential veto.
Last week, however, opponents began circulating a competing
bill that shifts attention toward the more distant but
ethically more palatable new procedures. The House version,
sponsored by Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett (R-Md.), was
written with assistance from the White House, a Bartlett
spokeswoman said.
The administration is eager for Bush to sign legislation
supportive of at least some types of stem cell research,
according to several lobbyists close to the congressional
negotiations. Signing such a bill could take some of the
sting out of a veto that is sure to infuriate patient groups
and could rile a

[[Page H5736]]

majority of Americans, who tell pollsters they back expanded
funding of embryonic stem cell research.
During the Fourth of July recess, many Senate Republicans
struggled with the question of whether the new legislation
should be brought to the floor as a substitute for the House-
passed bill or as a competing bill--and if both were to come
up, then how to vote on each. At least a handful of senators
have hinted in recent days that they may transfer their vote
to the new bill, Hill sources said--among them Hatch, Johnny
Isakson (R-Ga.) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.).
The issue will get its first formal airings at a Senate
subcommittee hearing Tuesday and at a Hill media event on
Wednesday at which pro-research celebrities Michael J. Fox
and Dana Reeve, widow of ``Superman'' star Christopher Reeve,
will call for an immediate loosening of Bush's policy.
Some supporters of the research say they would be happy if
both bills passed. But for some of the more ardent advocates
of an immediate expansion of the Bush policy, Bartlett's
alternative legislation is a diversion.
``Don't stop embryonic stem cell research now, hoping there
will be some other way to do it in the future,'' Senator Tom
Harkin (D-Iowa) said in an interview. ``These alternative
methods of deriving stem cells--we don't know whether they'll
work. The one thing we do know how to do is derive embryonic
stem cells.''
The new techniques fall into two major categories. In one,
a single cell is removed from a days-old embryo created for
fertility purposes and coaxed to become a self-replicating
colony of stem cells, leaving the remainder of the embryo to
develop normally.
The technique shows great promise, according to researchers
at Advanced Cell Technology Inc. in Worcester, Mass., who
pioneered it. But critics have raised the possibility that
individual cells removed from such young embryos may have the
biological potential to become embryos themselves, which
would mean their destruction or cultivation as colonies could
still raise ethical issues.
Bush's Council on Bioethics also expressed concerns
recently that such a technique may subtly harm an embryo,
even if it does not kill it.
``You may get a human being, but you may not get the same
human being,'' said William B. Hurlbut, a Stanford professor
and a council member. ``You might find that late in life,
there are some strange differences between those people and
others.''
Hurlbut is the leading proponent of a different approach,
which he calls altered nuclear transfer, or ANT. It involves
the creation of an embryo--or what Hurlbut says is something
akin to an embryo--that lacks a gene necessary for the
development of a placenta. Because a placenta is required for
an embryo to implant in a woman's womb, the altered embryo
would be genetically incapable of becoming a fetus or a baby.
For many, that would obviate ethical concerns about
destroying it to get its stem cells.
Researchers have tried the technique in mice with some
success, but its usefulness as a source of human stem cells
remains hypothetical. Some, such as Weissman, think the
difficulties inherent in making such a system work are being
overlooked by Hurlbut, who is a physician but not a research
scientist.
``I've been telling Bill, `Why don't you go work in a lab
this summer? Why not see how easy or hard it really is?' ''
said Weissman. He said he has no problem with the funding of
such research as long as it does not interfere with increased
funding for existing programs of embryo research.
Practical or not, ANT has gained a quickly widening circle
of support. The Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco,
William J. Levada, has written a letter to Bush assuring the
president of his support.
But other conservative leaders have mixed views on whether
it makes sense to pursue the new alternative therapies or to
focus single-mindedly on defeating any expansion of the
current policy.
``I have significant concerns about all the alternatives,''
said David Prentice, senior fellow for life sciences at the
Family Research Council, which he said does not yet have a
formal position on the science.
Jessica Echard, executive director of the Eagle Forum, the
public policy organization founded by Phyllis Schlafly, said
her group opposes ``middle ground'' legislation that pursues
alternative methods for producing embryonic stem cells.
``Most scientists will say it's never enough,'' she said.
``We will be giving ground to more and more unethical
research.''

____________________