Stem Cell Research
Background: A stem cell is a basic body cell that can reproduce itself and has the ability to differentiate itself into one or more specialized cell types. Stem cells are commonly divided into embryonic and adult (postnatal sources). Derivation of embryonic stem cells (ESCs) from the early embryo necessarily results in the death of the embryo, and thus is morally prohibited. The derivation of adult stem cells, however, presents no such moral issue and these stem cells can be used for research and treatment.
In general, stem cells show promise in treating diseases by assisting in the regeneration of damaged tissue. The pluripotent ESCs have proven very difficult to use and have produced no therapeutic benefits in humans. Adult stem cells are much more manageable and to date have produced therapeutic benefits in treating humans for at least 73 different diseases. See: www.stemcellresearch.org. For additional valuable resources, see:
www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/stemcell/index.shtml.
In November 2007, two major scientific studies were published in Science and Cell that show how to generate induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) without human cloning or destroying human embryos. Scientists in Wisconsin and Japan have produced iPS cells by direct reprogramming of adult cells. The iPS cells have the properties of human embryonic stem cells. For an analysis of this breakthrough, see a paper by Maureen Condic, Ph.D., and Markus Grompe, M.D., at: www.stemcellresearch.org/statement/pptalkingpointsweb.pdf. For a collection of statements by scientists on the importance of the iPS cell advance, see: www.nchla.org/docdisplay.asp?ID=231.
Work on iPS cells continues to go forward. On March 26, 2009, a team of scientists from the University of Wisconsin-Madison reported in the online issue of Science that it had created iPS cells “completely free of viral vectors and exotic genes,” removing “a key safety concern about the potential use of iPS cells in therapeutic settings.” UW-Madison scientist James Thompson, who in 2007 co-discovered a way to make iPS cells, stated, “Given the rapid pace of the field, it won’t be surprising if there are several alternative methods for producing vector and transgene free cells very soon.” See: www.news.wisc.edu/releases/15157.
Under the Bush Administration, regulations were issued that permitted federal funding for research only on ESCs existing as of August 9, 2001. Proponents of ESCR sought to overturn this policy.
The 109th Congress passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (H.R. 810), which would overturn the President’s policy and would allow federal funding for research on ESCs derived from human embryos donated from in vitro fertilization clinics. On July 19, 2006, President Bush vetoed H.R. 810. The House failed to override, falling 51 votes short of the required two-thirds.
The 110th Congress again passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (S. 5 —the Senate added a section on Alternative Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Research). On June 20, 2007, President Bush vetoed this bill. The Senate never attempted an override.
House: On February 4, 2009, Reps. Diana DeGette (D-CO) and Michael Castle (R-DE) introduced two bills, the Stem Cell Research Improvement Act (H.R. 872) and the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (H.R. 873). H.R. 872 has 16 other cosponsors; H.R. 873 has 109 other cosponsors. Both were referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Each of these bills contain virtually the same text as the first two sections of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Acts introduced in the House in previous Congresses: (1) a general section overturning the Bush Administration regulations (the government shall fund research using human embryonic stem cells regardless of the date on which the cells were derived from a human embryo) and (2) an “ethical requirements” section (the stem cells be derived from excess human embryos donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, prior to donation it be determined the embryos would never be implanted and would otherwise be discarded, and the donated embryos be donated with informed consent and without any financial or other inducement). However, with regard to the third and fourth sections of the bill, Guidelines and Reporting Requirements, H.R. 873 replicates the language of the previous bills but H.R. 872 amplifies these two sections and adds a fifth section on Sense of Congress.
On the evening of March 4, 2009, nine House Members spoke on the floor during a Special Order in opposition to ESCR and in favor of adult stem cell research. Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) stated that “human embryo-destroying stem cell research is not only unethical, unworkable and unreliable, it is now demonstrably unnecessary. Recent spectacular breakthroughs in noncontroversial adult stem cell research and clinical application to effectuate cures with the mitigation of disease or disability have been well documented.” He noted, “But perhaps the greatest breakthrough of all, Madam Speaker, was the discovery of a process that turns every day ordinary skin cells into pluripotent embryo-like stem cells.” See Congressional Record, 3/4/09, H2957-64. Others participating in this Special Order were Reps. Zach Wamp (R-TN), Virginia Foxx (R-VA), Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), Randy Forbes (R-VA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), John Fleming (R-LA), Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Michele Backmann (R-MN), and Mark Souder (R-IN).
Senate: On February 26, 2009, Sens. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (S. 487). The measure has nine additional sponsors and was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
S. 487 contains the same language as H.R. 873, but adds a section on Alternative Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Research (identical to the language used in S. 5, the Senate’s version of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act passed in 2007).
In his introductory remarks, Sen. Harkin noted that President Obama promised to overturn the Bush Administration regulations and expected “he will do so soon.” However, he said S. 487 was necessary so that ESCR would not depend on an executive order that could be reversed in the future (Congressional Record, 2/26/09, S2562).
Administration: On March 9, 2009, President Barack Obama issued an Executive Order overturning the Bush Administration ESCR guidelines (the August 9, 2001 policy permitting federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells existing as of that date and the June 20, 2007 Executive Order Expanding Approved Stem Cell Lines in Ethically Responsible Ways.) The federal government may “support and conduct” embryonic stem cell research “to the extent permitted by law.” The president also directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services through the Director of the National Institutes of Health to issue, within 120 days, guidelines implementing the order. See: www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Removing-Barriers-to-Responsible-Scientific-Research-Involving-Human-Stem-Cells.
In his remarks, the president emphasized that science should not serve “a political agenda” and not be based on “ideology.”
Critiques: However, Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, called the president’s order “a sad victory of politics over science and ethics.” For the first time, federal tax dollars will be used to encourage researchers to destroy live human embryos for stem cell research. See: www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2009/09-052.shtml.
Op-ed pieces took the president to task for claiming that science is the arbiter of values or failing to recognize the ways politics interacts with science. “Science is a glorious thing, but it is no substitute for wisdom, prudence or democracy.” “Yuval Levin, “Science Over All? The Temptation in Obama’s Stem Cell Policy,” Washington Post (3/10/09, A13). “The claim of taking science out of politics is false and misguided on two counts. First, the Obama policy is itself blatantly political. It . . . pays no more than lip service to recent scientific breakthroughs that make possible the production of cells that are biologically equivalent to embryonic stem cells without the need to create or kill human embryos. . . . Second and more fundamentally, the claim about taking politics out of science is in the deepest sense antidemocratic. The question of whether to destroy human embryos for research purposes is not fundamentally a scientific question; it is a moral and civic question about the proper uses, ambitions and limits of science.” Robert P. George and Eric Cohen, “The President Politicizes Stem-Cell Research,” Wall Street Journal (3/10/09, A13).
In “Science’s Rightful Place,” Life Issues Forum (3/10/09), Richard Doerflinger observes that the president’s newly announced stem cell policy “ignores his pledge to take science seriously—because science is moving on, and embryonic stem cells are becoming ‘obsolete’”—the latter judgment being that of a former director of NIH, Dr. Bernadine Healy in the March 4 issue of U.S. News and World Report. The reality. That embryonic stem cells are fraught with difficulties (tumors, tissue rejection). And the hope. “Adult stem cells, obtained without harming the donor, are benefiting more and more real patients, reversing the symptoms of multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease in the latest published trials.” And the technique for reprogramming ordinary adult cells into induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells “looks better with each passing month.” Mr. Doerflinger concludes: “Science and ethics are pointing the way forward together. The only thing standing in the way now is an ideology favoring embryo destruction. . . .”
Guidelines: On April 23, 2009, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) published draft guidelines to implement the Obama directive. See: nchla.org/docdisplay.asp?ID=245. On July 7, 2009, NIH published the final guidelines. See: nchla.org/datasource/idocuments/7NIHescGuidelns7.09.pdf . Federal taxpayer funds will now support research on human embryonic stem cells that are derived by killing human embryos acquired from fertility clinics. Parents can relinquish their embryonic children for such research when they no longer want them for reproduction.
Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the Catholic bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, called the final guidelines “even broader” than the proposed draft. For example, parents of the embryonic children need not be informed of all other options but “only about the options that happen to be available at their particular fertility clinic.” Also, stem cell lines already in existence or produced in foreign countries may be eligible for funding “even if they were obtained in ways that violate one or more of the NIH’s own informed consent requirements.”
The Cardinal noted that thousands of comments opposing destructive embryonic stem cell research “were simply ignored.” Also comments by the bishops’ conference and others against specific abuses in the draft “were not addressed.” For example, researchers will be allowed to insert human embryonic stem cells into non-primate animal embryos.
The Cardinal concluded: “This debate now shifts to Congress. . . .I hope Americans concerned about this issue will write to their elected representatives, urging them not to codify or further expand this unethical policy.” For the Cardinal’s full statement, see: www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2009/09-155.shtml.
Reps. Diana DeGette (D-CO) and Michael Castle (R-DE) have already announced that they intend to move forward with broader legislation to “promote all forms of ethical stem cell research,” which in their view includes cloning and the creation of embryos solely to destroy them. News reports in October, 2009 indicated that introduction of a bill was imminent.
For the Cardinal’s earlier statement in response to the guidelines in draft form, see: www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2009/09-087.shtml.
On May 22, 2009, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops submitted formal comments to NIH on the draft guidelines. See: www.usccb.org/prolife/NIHcomments.pdf.
Through the NCHLA Grassroots Action Center, you can send messages to your Representative and two U.S. Senators opposing the DeGette/Castle legislation. See: www.nchla.org/stemcell. For the full NCHLA Action Alert, see: www.nchla.org/actiondisplay.asp?ID=272. | 
