Hearing Sets Stage for Stem Cell Funding Debate

Just prior to offering the floor to Harold Varmus for the first Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education subcommittee hearing in more than two months, and just after exchanging pleasantries with the National Institutes of Health director, subcommittee chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) asked Varmus jokingly, "Did you like the $2 billion we gave you?" A smiling Varmus answered in the affirmative; onlookers chuckled. "It's my belief that stem cells do not fall under the ban on embryo research."--Sen. Tom Harkin As of now, however, none of that recent $2 billion NIH funding increase (to a total budget of $15.64 billion) can be put toward research that involves the creation of human embryos for research purposes--so dictates the president's 1994 directive. But if the tone of the Dec. 2 hearing on the ethical and scientific implications of stem cells is any indication of what's to come, NIH scientists may receive federal funds for research involving embryonic stem cells sooner rather than later. Every one of the eight panelists, a group composed of ethicists and scientists, supported federal funding except Richard M. Doerflinger, associate director for policy development at the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, National Conference of Catholic Bishops. While Doerflinger made clear that he and those that he represents oppose any research that relies on embryonic cells even if those cells are harvested from frozen embryos that would otherwise be destroyed, other witnesses did not share his reservations, instead suggesting that the medical benefits outweigh the ethical qualms.1 The potential applications for stem cell research are many, including, as noted at the hearing, future treatments for Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and juvenile-onset diabetes using cells and tissues grown from stem cells. When prompted by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), panelists were even so bold as to offer estimates as to when treatments and/or cures might materialize--in the case of Parkinson's, for example, hearing witness John D. Gearhart, a professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, estimated seven to 12 years, and witness James A. Thomson, an associate research veterinarian at the University of Wisconsin's Regional Primate Research Center in Madison, Wis., suggested five to 10. Several panelists, including the vice president of the Geron Corp. of Menlo Park, Calif., Thomas Okarma, suggested that NIH funding is essential if these goals are to be feasible, and is especially crucial for the completion of the necessary basic research that private companies are rarely geared toward. Harkin went so far as to question whether the current ban applies to stem cell research at all. "It's my belief that stem cells do not fall under the ban on embryo research," he said at the outset of the hearing. He asked each panelist in turn if stem cells were organisms--which, according to the ban, should not be created and then destroyed in the course of one's research. As expected, all answered no. But on this point there was some confusion: the issue is not what the stem cells have the potential to become, but from where they were harvested in the first place. Geron funded the stem cell research of both Gearhart and Thomson. While the NIH could have funded Gearhart's studies, which involved deriving pluripotent stem cells from fetal tissue taken from terminated pregnancies, it could not have funded research like that of Thomson, who derived cells from embryos created by in vitro fertilization. As for the studies of Michael West , also at the hearing, the embryo ban would not apply, but the federal ban on cloning might. Last November, West, president of the Worcester, Mass.-based Advanced Cell Technology, and his colleagues announced the creation of the first-ever bovine-human hybrid cells using nuclear transfer techniques. The as-yet-unpublished and unverified research alarmed President Bill Clinton enough for him to ask the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) to discuss the implications of the research at their Nov. 17 meeting.2 Doerflinger maintained that all such research should be denied government funds, emphasizing that the government sets a moral and ethical example for the country in the name of American taxpayers when choosing which research should be eligible for federal money. Such decisions should not be made, said Doerflinger, on the basis of private companies' willingness to carry out the research regardless. According to Doerflinger, none of the stored frozen embryos, of which there are tens of thousands, should be intentionally recruited and destroyed in the name of research even if they will likely meet such a fate anyway. Asked after the meeting if Doerflinger's contentions were legitimate, Varmus said only that "the legal questions will be answered." Clearly, the law will have to be reviewed and, based on that review, possibly reworked. As part of that effort, the NBAC plans to devote the majority of its Jan. 19 meeting to stem cell research. Varmus, who was happy with the hearing but felt that it was "badly torqued" by the as-yet-unproven hybrid cow-human cell studies that had "distorted the discussion of exciting research," guessed that there would be some sort of resolution within the fiscal year. P. Smaglik, "Stem Cell Scientists Caution: Clinical Applications Remain Years Away," The Scientist, 12[23]:5, Nov. 23, 1998. E. Russo, "Cow-Human Cell News Raises Ethical Issues," The Scientist, 12[23]:1, Nov. 23, 1998.

Hearing Sets Stage for Stem Cell Funding Debate

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of