[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15724-15732]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 15725]]

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 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

[[Page 15726]]

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.
  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

[[Page 15727]]

     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 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

[[Page 15728]]

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 
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

[[Page 15729]]

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 
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

[[Page 15730]]

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 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.

[[Page 15731]]

       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 
     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

[[Page 15732]]

     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 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.''

                          ____________________