Stem Cell Bill, Once Seen as a Sure Thing, Is Now Mired in Uncertainty

[urbsdad6]

article and links at:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/072305E.shtml


By Sheryl Gay Stolberg
The New York Times

Saturday 23 July 2005

Washington - A measure to expand federal financing for human embryonic stem cell research, passed by the House and once considered a shoo-in for adoption by the Senate, is tangled up in a procedural dispute that will probably delay a vote until fall - and could wind up killing the bill, its chief Republican backer said.

"The bill is in some danger," said Representative Michael N. Castle, Republican of Delaware and the measure's leading sponsor in the House.

Mr. Castle accused the White House, which has threatened to veto the measure, and the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, of "doing everything in their power to deflect votes away from it or keep it from coming up for a vote at all."

But a spokeswoman for Mr. Frist, Amy Call, said he had "worked tirelessly over the past few weeks" to get an agreement from other senators to bring the House bill up for a vote. Ms. Call said that if Mr. Frist could not broker a deal by the end of next week, when Congress leaves for its August recess, he intended to try again in September.

At the very least, the delay plunges the measure into an uncertain future. Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and the chief backer of the Senate bill, said that if the bill did not come up for a vote, he would attach it to a measure appropriating money to the National Institutes of Health, a measure whose fate he controls because he is chairman of the subcommittee that governs the institutes' spending.

"I don't like to put it on the appropriations bill," Mr. Specter, seeming exasperated, said in an interview Thursday, "but we've waited long enough."

Mr. Specter's measure, which is identical to the Castle bill, would permit federal financing for research on stem cell colonies, or lines, derived from embryos that are in frozen storage at fertility clinics. Currently, federal financing is limited to studies of those embryonic stem cell lines already in existence on Aug. 9, 2001, when Mr. Bush issued an executive order allowing the government to spend taxpayers' money on the research.

Human embryonic stem cells, which in nature give rise to all the cells and tissues of the body, are considered by scientists to be the building blocks of the new field of regenerative medicine. Advocates for patients say the cells hold hope for treatments and cures for a variety of diseases, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and diabetes.

But because human embryos are destroyed by the research, the studies draw intense moral objections from religious conservatives and opponents of abortion, who regard embryos as nascent human beings. In announcing his 2001 policy, Mr. Bush said his intention was to place tight restrictions on the research, limiting federal financing so as to discourage future embryo destruction.

The Specter-Castle bill has considerable Republican support in the Senate. But its opponents would like to spare the president - who has never exercised his veto power - from having to reject a measure that has broad public support. They have proposed a raft of alternatives that, Mr. Castle said, are designed to peel off support from the original bill.

"It is death by 1,000 cuts," Mr. Castle said.

Among the alternatives is a bill that would promote research into unproven methods of obtaining stem cells without destroying human embryos, and another that would allow research on some frozen embryos, but only those in storage at the present time. Even if those bills pass the Senate, Mr. Castle said, they are not likely to pass the House.

"They have managed to take six or seven concepts and do exactly what they want to do," Mr. Castle said, "confuse the issue and give people who have said all along that they would vote for our bill the ability to say we are voting for this or that."

With so many bills on the table, proponents have been fighting over whether and how to bring the measures for a vote.

Opponents of embryonic stem cell research, including Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, who is sponsoring a measure to ban human cloning both for reproduction and research, have insisted that the Senate take up their bills when it considers the Castle bill.

Mr. Specter is not keen on that. "As I have reviewed the bidding and have looked at six possible bills and six possible votes over a full day of debate, I have grave concerns that the issues can be crystallized and understood in that procedure," Mr. Specter said.

Mr. Frist has been juggling these competing demands, said Ms. Call, his spokeswoman.

"The leader is interested in getting a vote on the House bill and on other bills in this realm," she said, "so we can have a full and thoughtful debate."

-------

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on TO may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.



"My Two Cents Worth"

By Doc Urb


As far as I can tell all the promises of embryonic stem cell research have not occurred (as rapidly as those that promote it's use would like us to believe) and will probably not occur for quite sometime (on any large scale). They are basically (at this time)pie in the sky (very difficult to obtain and produce results that are beneficial now) and it seems that the method of obtaining them has provoked much discussion on the morality of their use with as yet (to the best of my knowledge) very little if any positive results. What fails to get mentioned and presented to the general public and widely acknowledged is that there is an unlimited supply of umbilical cord blood stem cells available for research from the umbilical cords of newborns and the results of said research are vastly more promising and successful than anything that has been attempted or achieved with embryonic stem cell research (that's not to say we should throw the baby out with the bath water). Unfortunately much of the cord blood is wasted and will continue to be wasted until public awareness is elevated. Our second born son had enough stem cells extracted from his umbilical cord to treat our whole family should we or he ever develop leukemia or need treatment for other types of cancer or brain and nerve injuries (that was in 2001 and today the possibilities are much greater than four years ago). One could ask cui bono regarding embryonic stem cell research. I ask why is such a huge and valuable resource being wasted when the research shows that cord blood stem cells are already having many positive results in various treatments of life threatening illness and injury?

Medical Expert Testimonials
Here is what medical experts have to say:

"Just like we didn't envision the powers of PCs thirty years ago, we may not be seeing all the uses of cord blood yet."

LeeAnn Jensen, M.D.
Immunologist National Institutes of Health

"...Some might argue that there is little to lose (except money) by freezing one's cord-blood cells. If they are needed, fine; if not, even better."

Robert Peter Gale, M.D., Ph.D.
Executive Committee Past Chair International Bone Marrow Transplant Registry (IBMTR)

"I strongly recommend that all expectant parents ask their doctor about the lifesaving potential of cord blood... Today, cord blood is being used to treat such life-threatening diseases as leukemia and other cancers, as well as certain blood and immune disorders that formerly necessitated a bone marrow transplant."

Dr. Marianne Neifert, Pediatrician
Baby Talk Magazine, October 1997

"Someday, collecting placental-umbilical cord blood may be as routine as it is unusual now...[It's] an opportunity to have the blood kept after delivery as biological insurance for the child."

Journal of the National Cancer Institute, February 1, 1995

BENEFITS OF CORD BLOOD

"Particular properties of lymphoid progenitors in cord blood might favor a greater thymic contribution and prompt a more durable long-term reconstitution [compared to stem cells from bone marrow]."

Eliane Gluckman, Kimmo Talvensaari, Emmanuel Clave, et al.
Blood, February 15, 2002

"Recipients of cord-blood transplants from HLA-identical siblings have a lower incidence rate of acute and chronic GVHD than recipients of bone marrow transplants from HLA-identical siblings."

Vanderson Rocha, M.D., John E. Wagner, Jr. , M.D., Eliane Gluckman, M.D., et. al.
New England Journal of Medicine, June 22, 2000

"Early data indicate that [cord blood] stem cells [are] associated with both a higher rate of engraftment and lower rate of significant graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) than is marrow from traditional donors."

Eddleman, K.
Contemporary OB/GYN, July 1998

"The ultimate goal is for all usable umbilical cord blood to be banked in a national cord blood [bank] similar to the National Bone Marrow Donor Program or saved for an individual's or family's own potential use. The latter may prove especially significant for those with a family history of leukemia or cancer or for minority ethnic patients."

Nursing Spectrum, February 24, 1997

"About 40% of the desperately ill patients who need bone marrow transplants never get them, because a donor who is an exact match can't be found through family connections or by the National Marrow Donor Program. Two reports in the July 18, 1996, New England Journal of Medicine strongly suggest that many of these patients could be helped by transplants of stem cells from placental [cord] blood, which is routinely discarded after babies are delivered."

"Top Ten Medical Advances of 1996," The Harvard Health Letter, March 1997, Vol. 22, No. 5

CORD BLOOD AND ADULT USE

"Umbilical-cord blood from unrelated donors can restore hematopoiesis in adults who receive myeloablative therapy and is associated with acceptable rates of severe acute and chronic GVHD."

Mary J. Laughlin, M.D., Juliet Barker, M.D., Barbara Bambach, M.D., et. al.
New England Journal of Medicine, June 14, 2001

FUTURE USE

"A really exciting area that's just now in the basic science lab, is the area where stem cells ...can be used for going over to muscle cells like your heart muscle if you had a heart attack...or brain cells if you had Parkinson's Disease...Hopefully, in 20 or 30 or 40 years...these might be potential applications for stem cells including umbilical cord blood stem cells."

Dr. Stanton Goldman, Pediatric Hematologist Oncologist and stem cell transplant Physician, Medical City, Dallas, Texas

"Through cultivation of stem cells extracted from the cord blood, patients with spinal injuries have a great chance of having their damaged nervous system repaired, helping them to rise on their feet again."

Chiang Yung-hsiao, M.D., Ph.D., Chairman of Neurosurgery, Tri-Service General Hospital, Tapei, Taiwan

"[Cord blood stem cells] might be suitable for transplantation in neurodegenerative diseases, gene delivery to the central nervous system, and repair of brain and spinal cord injuries."

Juan R. Sanchez-Ramos, Shijie Song, Siddharth G. Kamath, et. al.
Experimental Neurology, 171, 2001

"The promise of stem cells in the prevention and treatment of many diseases, including cancer, is so immense that it would be almost irresponsible for research on this technology to be marginalized... [W]e should also never lose sight of the tremendous life-saving possibilities of this technology."

Statement of Dr. Joseph Bailes, President Elect of the American Society of Clinical Oncology before the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, April 21, 1999

"Hematopoetic stem cells, i.e., cells capable of giving rise to the entire spectrum of mature hematopoetic and lymphoid cells, are the target of gene therapy for a variety of hematologic and immunologic disorders...The umbilical cord of neonates provides a unique alternative to bone marrow as a source of hematopoetic stem cells."

Kohn, D.B, Parkman, R.
The FASEB Journal, July 1997

INFANT USE OF OWN STEM CELLS

"Our study supports the recommendation of early intensification with autologous or allogeneic stem cell therapy rescue for infants with acute leukemia in CR1."

Fernando Marco, Encarna Bureo, Juan J. Ortega, et. al
Journal of Clinical Oncology, September 15, 2000

"As a result of numerous preclinical and clinical studies supporting the feasibility and efficacy of umbilical cord blood transplantation, there has been a growing interest in the large-scale collection of umbilical cord blood stem cells for future self-use by the infant....This service should be made available to individuals who feel a greater security knowing that they have stored their child's stem cells for future use if necessary."

Wagner, J.
The Journal of Hematotherapy, February 1997, Vol. 6, No. 1

"Autologous cord blood collections [collection for one's own use] could also be used as insurance against future illness requiring pluripotent stem cell support or as targets for gene therapy (the genetically altered stem cells could then be infused into the patient)."

Jay Feingold, M.D., Ph.D. Director, Pediatric Bone Marrow Transplant Program,
University of Connecticut, New Developments in Transplantation Medicine, Summer 1996, Vol. 3, No. 1.


For more background on cord blood and the potentials it holds go here:

http://www.cordblood.com/index.asp

Then ask yourself is embryonic stem cell research really "all that" and capable of fulfilling the promises made by it's proponents. Is it as capable of fulfilling immediate needs as readily as cord blood stem cells are capable of? Is it worth the cost of admission?Where do we draw the line regarding when human life starts in the development of the embryo? Difficult questions and no easy answers with a definite need for all the facts to be put on the table.

Doc Urb

[1CAVCCO15MED]

Great post, Doc!

[Gimpy]

Doc 'Fred' said!!

[SuperScout]

Wonder why the most obvious question hasn't been asked yet: if stem-cell research has such promise of producing wonder cures, why hasn't some private pharmaceutical company jumped all over this financial bandwagon so that they can reap the vast financial rewards with patented cures? Or asked a different way, what business does the federal government have being involved in this venture at all? I would think that the feds have a much higher priority to spending our tax dollars, such as funding veterans' benefits.

[urbsdad6]

Scout,

I think this is more biotech than pharmaceutical. Interesting to note, a researcher that started out doing stem cell research in the late 70's early 80's found that no matter what culture you put the stem cells in they changed into that culture. For instance if wanted to grow nerve cell from stem cells you would culture them with nerve cells, muscle cells with muscle cells, etc. The result being that it's not about genetics, it's about the environment they are in. Don't know if he was using fetal stem cells or more mature stem cells like those in cord blood. The bottom line is that it has far reaching implications in more than just the medical field as far as what we as human beings can achieve within our own bodies.


Doc Urb

[SuperScout]

But that begs the question: if stem cell or cord cell or whatever source cell has such dang-nigh infinitesimally large promise, why isn't some Daddy Warbucks fronting the money with such obviously large payoff potential? Is it because the payoff potential is more a function of some scientist's imagination or wishful thinking, someone too lazy to become a real entrepreneur and one just wanting to nuzzle up the the ever-present government teat? As many wise and wizened men have said, "Just check the money trail." I repeat my contention that is is no business of government to subsidize this type of research.

[urbsdad6]

Well, considering the corporate nature of today's Government, they almost have to have their hands in it in some way. I agree that they shouldn't and it is surprising that we don't hear a lot more about it but considering the media and the typical teleprompter reader; "Family of five drives out of state. Film at eleven." I would have to think that there is more going on if we dig around and look. Just isn't the type of thing the media wants to cover. Also think that one of the loopholes they could use is funding at the university level. Don't know that much about it all except that like a hand grenade in the wrong hands it could be fatal but in the right hands it could be a life saver. Just depends on who has control of it.

Doc Urb

[Andy]

This isn't a nuts and bolts answer to your question but it might help a little. California and Massachusetts have both passed legislation to allow stem cell research. Here in Mass. the people behind the bill were the colleges, mainly Harvard and MIT. They seem to think if the bill was not passed Europe would take the lead in this sort of research. To those schools, research IS money. Don?t know which companies are behind this but business must be involved. With politics it?s wise for a college, for example, to take the lead on bills that may have moral/religious connotations.

Stay healthy,
Andy

[SuperScout]

You made my case. And to answer doc's contention that our government has a corporate nature, I'd say it was a corporation destined for the Chapter 13's of history. If I ran my corporation the same way the government runs itself, I'd be broke in a week. How much governmental subsidy did Bill Gates, or Bill Lear ever get? I say again, if stem cell or cord cell or cell phones is such a hot mega-science deal, let private enterprise fund it.