Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bipartisan bill, and I will submit today's column in The Wall Street Journal written by Dr. David A. Shaywitz, an endocrinologist in stem cell research at Harvard, for the Record. I would call to the…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bipartisan bill, and I will submit today's column in The Wall Street Journal written by Dr. David A. Shaywitz, an endocrinologist in stem cell research at Harvard, for the Record. I would call to the attention of my colleagues this column and particularly a couple of lines that he wrote today. I must say that I am one that will be voting for both bills today, the cord bill as well as the Castle/DeGette bill; but as you compare these two bills, let me note a couple of things that this noted researcher says.
He says: ``Presently, only the few lines established prior to the date,'' this is in reference to the President's initial plan back in 2001, ``are eligible for government support, a prohibition that has had a crippling effect on researchers in this emerging field.'' It further says, it relates to the cord bill, in essence: ``It seems extremely unlikely that adult blood cells or blood
cells from the umbilical cord will be therapeutically useful as a source of anything else but blood.''
Mr. Speaker, there are few families that I know that have not been impacted by a myriad of these diseases. We need help. We need to find a cure, and that is why we need to support both pieces of legislation this afternoon.
The Stem Cell Debate
(By David A. Shaywitz)
Perhaps themost underrated achievement of the modern
conservative movement has been a renewed appreciation for the
danger of ``junk science''--unsubstantiated scientific
research that is exploited for political gain. How sad, then,
that in the ongoing debate over stem cell research, many
conservatives have chosen to abandon their well-founded
skepticism and to embrace dubious but convenient data for the
sake of advancing their cause.
The latest tempest has emerged from remarkably modest
congressional legislation, proposed by Republican Michael
Castle and Democrat Diana DeGette and scheduled for a vote
today, which would permit federal funds to be used on human
embryonic stem cell lines derived after Aug. 9, 2001.
Presently, only the few lines established prior to this date
are eligible for government support, a prohibition that has
had a crippling effect on research in this emerging field.
Human embryonic stem cells have the potential to develop
into any adult cell type. If this process of specialization
could be achieved in the lab, scientists might be able to
create replacement pancreas cells for diabetics, or neurons
for patient with Parkinson's Disease; these treatments are
likely many years away.
For some opponents of embryonic stem cell science, the
argument is fundamentally one of faith: The human embryo
should be held as sacrosanct, and not used for the pursuit of
any ends, regardless of how nobly intended. The trouble for
such dogmatic critics of embryonic stem cell research is that
most Americans hold a less extreme position; given a choice
between discarding frozen, excess embryos from in vitro
fertilization clinics or allowing the cells to be used for
medical research--specifically, the generation of new
embryonic stem cell lines--most of us would choose the
second. Consequently, conservative stem cell opponents have
now begun to argue in earnest that embryonic stem cell
research is not just morally wrong, but also unnecessary, an
argument that relies on suspect science and appears motivated
by even more questionable principles.
First, the science: Opponents of the Castle-DeGette
legislation assert that embryonic stem cells are unnecessary
because adult stem cells, as well as umbilical cord blood
stem cells, will perform at least as well as embryonic stem
cells, and have already demonstrated their therapeutic value.
This argument appears very popular, and has been articulated
by almost every member of Congress who has spoken out against
the new stem cell bill.
To be sure, one of the great successes of modern medicine
has been the use of adult blood stem cells to treat patients
with leukemia. The trouble is generalizing from this: There
are very strong data suggesting that while blood stem cells
are good at making new blood cells, they are not able to turn
into other types of cells, such as pancreas or brain. The
limited data purported to demonstrate the contrary are
preliminary, inconclusive, unsubstantiated, or all three.
Thus, it seems extremely unlikely that adult bloodcells--or
blood cells from the umbilical cord--will be therapeutically
useful as a source of anything else by blood.
Moreover, while stem cells seem to exist for some cell
types in the body--the blood and the intestines, for
example--many adult tissues such as the pancreas, may not
have stem cells at all. Thus, relying on adult stem cells to
generate replacement insulin-producing cells for patients
with diabetes is probably an exercise in futility.
For true believers, of course, these scientific facts
should be beside the point; if human embryonic stem cell
research is morally, fundamentally, wrong, then it should be
wrong, period, regardless of the consequences to medical
research. If conservatives believe their own rhetoric, they
should vigorously critique embryonic stem cell research on
its own grounds, and not rely upon an appeal to utilitarian
principles.
Instead, there has been a concerted effort to establish
adult stem cells as a palatable alternative to embryonic stem
cells. In the process, conservatives seem to have left their
usual concern for junk science at the laboratory door, citing
in their defense preliminary studies and questionable data
that they would surely--and appropriately--have ridiculed
were it not supporting their current point of view. In fact,
there is little credible evidence to suggest adult stem cells
have the same therapeutic potential as embryonic stem cells.
Conservatives often speak of the need to abide by difficult
principle; acknowledging the limitations of adult stem cell
research would seem like a good place to start.
Human embryonic stem cell research represents one of the
most important scientific frontiers, and also one of the most
controversial: Our national debate on it deserves to be
informed by our loftiest ethical aspirations--but also
grounded in our most rigorous scientific standards.