Order Code RL31015
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Stem Cell Research
Updated January 11, 2006
Judith A. Johnson
Specialist in Life Sciences
Domestic Social Policy Division
Erin D. Williams
Specialist in Bioethical Policy
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Stem Cell Research
Summary
Embryonic stem cells have the ability to develop into virtually any cell in the
body, and they may have the potential to treat medical conditions such as diabetes
and Parkinson’s disease. In August 2001, President Bush announced that for the first
time federal funds would be used to support research on human embryonic stem
cells, but funding would be limited to “existing stem cell lines.” NIH has established
a registry listing the 78 human embryonic stem cell lines that are eligible for use in
federally funded research, but only 22 cell lines are currently available. Scientists are
concerned about the quality and longevity of these 22 stem cell lines. For a variety
of reasons, many believe research advancement requires new embryonic stem cell
lines, and for certain applications, stem cells derived from cloned embryos may offer
the best hope for understanding and treating disease. However, an investigation by
Seoul National University found that scientist Hwang Woo Suk had fabricated results
on deriving patient-matched stem cells from cloned embryos — a major setback for
the field. A significant cohort of pro-life advocates supports stem cell research; those
opposed are concerned that stem cell isolation requires embryo destruction.
Some have argued that stem cell research be limited to adult stem cells obtained
from tissues such as bone marrow or umbilical cord blood. They argue that adult
stem cells should be pursued instead of embryonic stem cells because they believe
the derivation of stem cells from embryos is ethically unacceptable. Other scientists
believe adult stem cells should not be the sole target of research because of important
scientific and technical limitations. Some scientists are exploring the possibility of
obtaining human embryonic stem cells that bypass the destruction of living human
embryos. The President’s Council on Bioethics cite four potential alternative sources
of human embryonic stem cells in a May 2005 paper.
On May 24, 2005, the House passed H.R. 810 (Castle) which would allow
federal support of research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells regardless of the
date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo, thus negating the
August 2001 Bush stem cell policy limitation on “existing stem cell lines.” On July
29, 2005, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist announced his support for H.R. 810/S.
471 (Specter); President Bush has threatened a veto. Action on the Weldon bill
(passed the House in the 107th and 108th and stalled in the Senate) is likely; it was
reintroduced in the 109th Congress as H.R. 1357 and S. 658 (Brownback). The bill
bans the process of cloning as well as the importation of any product derived from
an embryo created via cloning. It bans not only reproductive applications, but also
research on therapeutic uses, which has implications for stem cell research.
Advocates of the legislative ban say that allowing any form of human cloning
research to proceed raises serious ethical issues and will inevitably lead to the birth
of a baby that is a human clone. Critics argue that the measure would curtail medical
research and prevent Americans from receiving life-saving treatments created
overseas. S. 876, H.R. 1822 and S. 1520 ban only human reproductive cloning. Bills
focused on alternative sources of stem cells (H.R. 3144/S. 1557) have also been
introduced. On December 20, 2005, the President signed H.R. 2520 (P.L. 109-129),
which provides for the collection and maintenance of human cord blood stem cells
for the treatment of patients and for research. This report will be updated as needed.
Contents
Basic Research and Potential Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Embryonic Stem Cells from IVF Embryos or Fetal Tissue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Embryonic Stem Cells Obtained via SCNT (Cloning) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Alternative Sources of Human Embryonic Stem Cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Dead Embryos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Embryo Biopsy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Biological Artifacts — Altered Nuclear Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Dedifferentation of Somatic Cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Stem Cells from Adult Tissue or Umbilical Cord Blood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Potential Applications of Stem Cell Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Current Federal Regulatory Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
The Dickey Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Clinton Administration Stem Cell Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Bush Administration Stem Cell Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Agency Regulation: FDA and NIH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
FDA Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
NIH Research Funding and Stem Cell Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Concerns Over Access to Stem Cell Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Reproductive Genetics Institute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Harvard Stem Cell Institute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Stanford Institute for Cancer/Stem Cell Biology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
UCSF Developmental and Stem Cell Biology Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Worldwide Survey of Stem Cell Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Congressional Letters on Bush Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
National Academies Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
State Actions on Embryonic Stem Cell Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
State Embryonic and Fetal Research Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
State Initiatives to Encourage Stem Cell Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Congressional Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
International Actions on Embryonic Stem Cell Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
South Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Ethical Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Embryo Destruction and Relief of Human Suffering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Viability of Embryos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Purpose of Embryo Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
New and Existing Cell Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Consent of Donors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Egg Procurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Effectiveness of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Generating Embryonic Stem Cells Without Destroying Human
Embryos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Use of Federal Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
List of Tables
Table 1. National Institutes of Health Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 2. NIH List of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Eligible for Use in
Federal Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Stem Cell Research
Basic Research and Potential Applications
Most cells within an animal or human being are committed to fulfilling a single
function within the body. In contrast, stem cells are a unique and important set of
cells that are not specialized. Stem cells retain the ability to become some or all of
the more than 200 different cell types in the body and thereby play a critical role in
repairing organs and body tissues throughout life. Although the term stem cells is
often used in reference to these repair cells within an adult organism, a more
fundamental variety of stem cells is found in the early stage embryo. Embryonic
stem cells may have a greater ability to become different types of body cells than
adult stem cells.
Embryonic Stem Cells from IVF Embryos or Fetal Tissue
Embryonic stem cells were first isolated from mouse embryos in 1981 and from
primate embryos in 1995. Animal embryos were the only source for research on
embryonic stem cells until November 1998, when two groups of U.S. scientists
announced the successful isolation of human embryonic stem cells. One group, at
the University of Wisconsin, derived stem cells from five-day-old embryos produced
via in vitro fertilization (IVF).1 The work is controversial, in the opinion of some,
because the stem cells are located within the embryo and the process of removing
them destroys the embryo. The second group, at Johns Hopkins University, derived
stem cells with very similar properties from five- to nine-week-old embryos or
fetuses obtained through elective abortion.2 Both groups reported the human
embryos or fetuses were donated for research following a process of informed
consent. The cells removed from embryos or fetuses were manipulated in the
laboratory to create embryonic stem cell lines that may continue to divide for many
months to years. The vast majority of research on human embryonic stem cells
utilizes cell lines derived via the University of Wisconsin method.
1
The IVF embryos were originally created for the treatment of infertility. Excess embryos
are often frozen for future use. A couple may elect to discard their excess embryos, donate
the embryos for research, or allow another couple to adopt an embryo. According to a survey
of over 430 infertility clinics performed by the Society for Assisted Reproductive
Technology and RAND, nearly 400,000 embryos are being stored in the United States; 88%
of the embryos are being held to help the couples have children at a later date.
2
Scientists and physicians use the term “embryo” for the first eight weeks after fertilization,
and “fetus” for the ninth week through birth. In contrast, the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) regulations define “fetus” as “the product of conception from the
time of implantation” (45 C.F.R. § 46.203).
CRS-2
Embryonic Stem Cells Obtained via SCNT (Cloning)
Another potential source of embryonic stem cells is somatic cell nuclear transfer
(SCNT), also referred to as cloning.3 In SCNT the nucleus of an egg is removed and
replaced by the nucleus from a mature body cell, such as a skin cell. The cell created
via SCNT is allowed to develop for several days and then the stem cells are removed.
In 1996, scientists in Scotland used the SCNT procedure to produce Dolly the sheep,
the first mammalian clone.4
Charges of ethical and scientific misconduct have clouded the reputation of
scientists involved in deriving stem cells from cloned human embryos. In February
2004, scientists at the Seoul National University (SNU) in South Korea announced
the first isolation of stem cells from a cloned human embryo. In May 2005, this
same group announced they had achieved major advances in the efficiency of
creating human cloned embryos using SCNT and in isolating human stem cells from
the cloned embryos. Serious concerns about the achievements of the SNU group
arose in November 2005 when a co-author of the 2005 paper, Gerald Schatten of the
University of Pittsburgh, accused Hwang Woo Suk, the lead researcher of the SNU
group, of ethical misconduct.5 The accusation halted plans for a collaboration
between the SNU scientists and U.S. and UK labs that had been announced only one
month earlier.
In early December, scientists in South Korea began questioning the validity of
photographs and other scientific evidence presented in the 2005 paper and called for
an independent analysis of the data. On December 12, 2005, Schatten asked that his
name be removed from the 2005 paper.6 The University of Pittsburgh and SNU
began separate investigations into the charges. On December 15, 2005, another coauthor of the 2005 paper, Sung Il Roh, stated to the Korean media that the research
was fabricated and the 2005 paper should be retracted. Hwang agreed to the
retraction on December 16, but continued to defend the scientific results.7 In reports
released on December 23 and 29, 2005, SNU stated that the stem cell lines described
in the 2005 paper were neither patient-matched nor derived through cloning, and
3
A somatic cell is a body cell. In contrast, a germ cell is an egg or sperm cell.
4
Dolly was euthanized in Feb. 2003 after developing a lung infection. Some claim her
death at six years was related to being a clone, but her ailment may also have occurred
because she was raised indoors (for security reasons) rather than as a pastured sheep, which
often live to 12 years of age. G. Kolata, “First Mammal Clone Dies,” New York Times, Feb.
15, 2003, p. A4.
5
Gretchen Vogel, “Collaborators Split over Ethics Allegations” Science, Nov. 18, 2005, p.
1100.
6
The Associated Press, “South Korean’s Cloning Research Challenged,” The New York
Times, Dec. 13, 2005.
7
Gordan Fairclough, “South Korean Scientist Denies Falsifying Stem-Cell Research,” The
Wall Street Journal, Dec. 17, 2005, p. A4.
CRS-3
were deliberately fabricated.8 9 On January 10, 2006, SNU stated that results of the
2004 paper, which reported the first derivation of stem cells from a cloned human
embryo, were also a deliberate fabrication.10
Scientists at the University of Newcastle, the University of Edinburgh and
Harvard University are working on deriving patient-matched stem cells from cloned
human embryos.11
The ethical and scientific misconduct developments in South Korea as well as
the unsubstantiated announcement by Clonaid in December 2002 of the birth of a
cloned child have contributed to the controversy over research on human embryos.12
Alternative Sources of Human Embryonic Stem Cells
Most scientists involved in human embryonic stem cell research are focused on
using stem cells derived from human embryos via the methods developed by
scientists at the University of Wisconsin. However, a small number of scientists
have begun to explore ways of obtaining human embryonic stem cells that bypass the
destruction of living human embryos and, therefore, may be less troubling to certain
individuals, including some Members of Congress. The President’s Council on
Bioethics identified four potential methods in a paper released in May 2005.13 The
four alternative methods would require additional research to determine whether
human embryonic stem cells could be generated.
Some council members, however, expressed concern that work on alternative
sources is a “diversion from the simple task at hand which is to move forward with
the established laboratory techniques ... for studying embryonic stem cell research
and biomedical cloning” and that the four proposals would “use financial resources
that would be better devoted to proposals that are likely to be more productive.”14
Laurie Zoloth, professor of Medical Humanities and Bioethics, and of Religion at
Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, maintains that public
funding should not be used to satisfy the moral qualms of a minority and proposes
8
Rick Weiss, “Korean Stem Cell Lines Faked,” The Washington Post, Dec. 23, 2005, p. A1.
9
Choe San-Hun, “Panel further discredits Stem Cell Work of South Korean Scientist,” The
New York Times, Dec. 29, 2005, p. 9.
10
Nicholas Wade and Choe Sang-Hun, “Researcher Faked Evidence of Human Cloning,
Koreans Report,” The New York Times, Jan. 10, 2006, p. A1.
11
Dennis Normile, Gretchen Vogel, and Constance Holden, “Cloning Researcher Says Work
is Flawed but Claims Results Stand,” Science, Dec. 23, 2005, p. 1886-1887.
12
For further information, see CRS Report RL31358, Human Cloning, by Judith A. Johnson
and Erin Williams.
13
The President’s Council on Bioethics, White Paper: Alternative Sources of Human
Pluripotent Stem Cells, May 2005, at [http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/white_paper/
index.html].
14
Ibid., Personal Statement of Michael S. Gazzaniga, p. 76 and Personal Statement of Dr.
Janet D. Rowley, p. 90.
CRS-4
that private religious groups should consider funding research on alternative sources
of human embryonic stem cells just as Jehovah’s Witnesses supported efforts to
develop blood-saving surgical techniques to avoid transfusions.15
Dead Embryos. One possible method under discussion is deriving human
embryonic stem cells from dead embryos. Early embryos frequently fail to develop
in naturally occurring conceptions.
Slightly fewer than a third of all conceptions lead to a fetus that has a chance of
developing. In other words, if you were to choose [an embryo] at random and
follow it through the first week of development, the chances are less than one in
three that it would still be there at full term, even though there has been no
human intervention. Nature, it seems, performs abortions at a much higher rate
than human society. It is simply not true that most [embryos], if undisturbed,
will produce a human being. The probability that a conception will result in a
live birth is actually quite low. Note that since we have assumed that all
conceptions lead to cell division, we have almost surely overestimated the true
success rate.16
As many as 60% of IVF embryos produced by infertility clinics are judged to
be incapable of developing to live birth, due to abnormal appearance or failure to
divide appropriately, and are not used by the infertile couple. Although failure to
divide is often caused by genetic abnormalities and might seem to eliminate any
prospect of using these embryos even for research, several studies suggest that some
normal cells may be obtained from such organismically dead embryos and may be
useful in creating stem cell lines.
The possibility that normal cells removed from dead embryos could potentially
develop into an embryo (and if transferred into a uterus — a child) would be
disturbing to some individuals. In addition, such a possibility would likely preclude
federal funding for producing stem cell lines from such cells because of restrictions
contained in the Dickey Amendment (see subsection, below, Embryo Biopsy).
Research studies to determine the precise criteria for embryonic organismic death
would be needed; however, such “natural history” studies could not be conducted
with federal dollars. Federal funding of any type of research involving human
embryos, starting with IVF then later cloning and the creation of stem cell lines from
embryos, has been blocked by various policy decisions dating back more than 25
years and is currently controlled by the Dickey Amendment (see section, below, The
Dickey Amendment and Clinton Administration Stem Cell Policy).
The President’s Council points out that this method of obtaining stem cells from
dead embryos may not be acceptable to scientists because they understandably want
to work only with the best materials. Why would scientists want to use cells derived
from dead embryos, which may be abnormal, or even bother trying to create these
cell lines when they can use existing cell lines or derive new ones from IVF
15
Molly Laas, “Alternative Stem Cell Derivation Methods Should Be Funded By Private
Religious Groups,” Research Policy Alert, Nov. 10, 2005.
16
Harold J. Morowitz and James S. Trefil, The Facts of Life: Science and the Abortion
Controversy (Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 51.
CRS-5
embryos? The only advantage may be eligibility for federal funding. One Council
member points out that the proposal entails thawing out embryos to follow the
natural history of dead embryos, and because it is unknown “which embryos will not
divide and which will, some portion (about half) will continue to divide and will be
healthy embryos. What happens to these healthy embryos? ... [I]t would be strange,
while allowing large numbers of unwanted but otherwise normal and viable IVF
embryos to die, to ask scientists to make strenuous efforts to rescue cells, potentially
abnormal, only from those thawed embryos that have spontaneously stopped
dividing. ... This seems to me to be the height of folly.”17
Embryo Biopsy. A second method of obtaining embryonic stem cells without
destroying the embryo employs a technique used by IVF clinics that offer preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). At the 6-8 cell stage, one or two cells are
removed from the embryo created via IVF; these cells are then screened for genetic
or chromosomal abnormalities before the embryo is transferred to a woman’s uterus.
More than 1,000 children have been born following PGD, though it is still unclear
whether subtle or late onset injuries may occur in children born following PGD.18
In October 2005, scientists at Advanced Cell Technology of Massachusetts
announced success in deriving mouse embryonic stem cells by removing one cell
from an eight-cell mouse embryo. Following implantation into a surrogate mother,
the seven-cell embryos developed into healthy mice at the same rate as embryos that
had not been biopsied. However, creation of the stem cell lines was much less
efficient than when a later-stage embryo was used.
It may be possible to create human stem cell lines using cells obtained in this
manner; after cell removal, the seven-cell embryo could presumably be used to
initiate a pregnancy. Although it is understandable that couples who are at risk of
having a child with a genetic disease may willingly agree to the potential added risk
of PGD, it is difficult to understand what circumstances might motivate any couple
to agree to such a procedure for the sole purpose of creating stem cell lines for
research. Research studies to determine if there is a risk of harm to a human embryo
by the cell biopsy procedure could not be funded with federal dollars due to, as
mentioned above, longstanding opposition to federal support for any type of research
involving human embryos. Furthermore, a single cell from a sheep or rabbit 4- or 8cell embryo is capable of developing into a normal sheep or rabbit. The possibility
that a biopsied human cell may have “the potential to develop into an embryo and a
child on its own” could preclude federal funding for producing stem cell lines from
such cells because of restrictions contained in the Dickey Amendment (see section,
below, The Dickey Amendment and Clinton Administration Stem Cell Policy).19
Biological Artifacts — Altered Nuclear Transfer. A third possible
method involves using the techniques of genetic engineering and SCNT (cloning) to
17
The President’s Council on Bioethics, White Paper: Alternative Sources of Human
Pluripotent Stem Cells, May 2005, p. 21 and p. 89.
18
19
Ibid., pp. 24-25.
Ibid., p. 29.
CRS-6
obtain embryonic stem cells from embryo-like groups of cells which are not, in the
strict sense, human embryos. In this approach, called altered nuclear transfer (ANT),
a gene in the nucleus of the somatic cell is altered, so that normal embryo
development is not possible, before the nucleus is placed within an enucleated egg.
In October 2005, scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported
success in generating mouse embryonic stem cells utilizing the ANT approach. A
gene was disabled that allows for embryo implantation; gene function can be restored
later so the stem cell line is unaffected. As is the case with SCNT, if the ANT
approach is ever used to generate human embryonic stem cells a major obstacle
would be obtaining an adequate supply of human eggs. This is the subject of intense
scientific research. Researchers are trying to develop methods of obtaining human
eggs without resorting to superovulation of female patients, an expensive procedure
that some find morally questionable.
Some researchers believe ANT might serve as a temporary bridge until other
technologies are developed, such as dedifferentiation of somatic cells. Until then, if
federal support is provided, its proponents believe ANT would allow embryonic stem
cell research collaboration on a national level without the ethical concerns involved
in using leftover IVF embryos. Others believe that the procedures involved in ANT
are more complex than deriving human embryonic stem cells from normal embryos,
and many scientists “would be reluctant to attempt such challenging feats with no
rational purpose other than to satisfy the ethical objections of others.”20
Critics are concerned over the questionable morality of creating a biological
artifact with a built in genetic defect, or what might be considered as the deliberate
creation of a doomed or disabled human embryo. “Some find it aesthetically
repulsive and ethically suspect to be creating such neither-living-nor-nonliving, nearhuman artifacts, a practice they regard as ethically no improvement over destroying
early embryos.”21 Proponents of the ANT approach argue that “such an entity would
be a ‘biological artifact,’ not an organism. Removal of cells from, or even
disaggregation of, this artifact would not be killing or harming, for there is no living
being here to be killed or harmed.”22 Given the ethical uncertainties, it is unclear
whether or not research involving ANT to generate human embryonic stem cells
could be supported with federal funds.
Dedifferentation of Somatic Cells. The fourth method identified by the
President’s Council on Bioethics involves the dedifferentiation of somatic cells,
literally reprogramming or winding back the clock on cell development to produce
cells with the capabilities of embryonic stem cells. In August 2005, researchers at
Harvard announced qualified success at producing a hybrid cell that has some of the
characteristics of an embryonic stem cell.23 The Harvard group fused human skin
cells with human embryonic stem cells, but the process is very inefficient — 50
20
Ibid., p. 47.
21
The President’s Council on Bioethics, White Paper, p. 41.
22
Ibid., p. 37.
23
Rick Weiss, “Skin Cells Converted to Stem Cells,” The Washington Post, Aug. 22, 2005,
p. A1.
CRS-7
million skin cells and 50 million embryonic stem cells yielded only 10 to 20 fused
cells — and unfortunately all the hybrid cells have twice the normal amount of
DNA. However, Yuri Verlinski and his team at the Reproductive Genetics Institute
in Chicago claim to have created 10 patient-matched embryonic stem cell lines,
called stembrids, with the normal amount of DNA. First the nucleus, which contains
the DNA, is removed from the human embryonic stem cells and then these
enucleated cells are fused with cells from a patient.24 Alan Trounson at Monash
University in Melbourne, Australia, is working on a similar method involving cell
fusion.25
Because embryos are not involved, federal funding for research on this method
would presumably not be blocked by the Dickey Amendment. However, the
President’s Council on Bioethics expresses some concern that dedifferentiation might
proceed too far, resulting in the functional equivalent of an embryo. This possibility
would raise serious ethical issues for some, and presumably the Dickey Amendment
may again preclude the use of this method in the production of human embryonic
stem cells for research. Moreover, such an embryo would be a clone of the
individual who donated the somatic cell and any attempt to “save” such an embryo
through the implantation in a woman’s uterus would raise additional moral and
ethical questions.
Stem Cells from Adult Tissue or Umbilical Cord Blood
Stem cells obtained from adult organisms are also the focus of research. There
have been a number of recent publications on the abilities and characteristics of adult
stem cells from a variety of different sources, such as bone marrow and the umbilical
cord following birth. In fact, bone marrow transplantation, a type of adult stem cell
therapy, has been used for 30 years to successfully treat patients for a variety of
blood-related conditions. Several private companies (such as MorphoGen,
NeuralStem, Osiris Therapeutics, StemSource, ViaCell) are working on additional
therapeutic uses of adult stem cells.
Some advocate that adult instead of embryonic stem cell research should be
pursued because they believe the derivation of stem cells from either IVF embryos
or aborted fetuses is ethically unacceptable. Others believe that adult stem cells
should not be the sole target of research because of important scientific and technical
limitations. Adult stem cells may not be as long lived or capable of as many cell
divisions as embryonic stem cells. Also, adult stem cells may not be as versatile in
developing into various types of tissue as embryonic stem cells, and the location and
rarity of the cells in the body might rule out safe and easy access. For these reasons,
many scientists argue that both adult and embryonic stem cells should be the subject
of research, allowing for a comparison of their various capabilities.
24
Michael LePage and Rowan Hooper, “Double Triumph in Stem Cell Quest,” New
Scientist, May 28, 2005, p. 8.
25
Rick Weiss, “Stem Cell Advances May Make Moral Issue Moot,” The Washington Post,
June 6, 2005, p. A7.
CRS-8
Potential Applications of Stem Cell Research
Stem cells provide the opportunity to study the growth and differentiation of
individual cells into tissues. Understanding these processes could provide insights
into the causes of birth defects, genetic abnormalities, and other disease states. If
normal development were better understood, it might be possible to prevent or
correct some of these conditions. Stem cells could be used to produce large amounts
of one cell type to test new drugs for effectiveness and chemicals for toxicity. Stem
cells might be transplanted into the body to treat disease (diabetes, Parkinson’s
disease) or injury (e.g., spinal cord). The damaging side effects of medical treatments
might be repaired with stem cell treatment. For example, cancer chemotherapy
destroys immune cells in patients, decreasing their ability to fight off a broad range
of diseases; correcting this adverse effect would be a major advance.
Before stem cells can be applied to human medical problems, substantial
advances in basic cell biology and clinical technique are required. In addition, very
challenging regulatory decisions will be required on the individually created tissuebased therapies resulting from stem cell research. Such decisions would likely be
made by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) of the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA). The potential benefits mentioned above would be likely
only after many more years of research. Technical hurdles include developing the
ability to control the differentiation of stem cells into a desired cell type (like a heart
or nerve cell) and to ensure that uncontrolled development, such as a cancerous
tumor, does not occur. Some experiments may involve the creation of a chimera, an
organism that contains two or more genetically distinct cell types, from the same
species or different species.26 If stem cells are to be used for transplantation, the
problem of immune rejection must also be overcome. Some scientists think that the
creation of many more embryonic stem cell lines will eventually account for all the
various immunological types needed for use in tissue transplantation therapy. Others
envision the eventual development of a “universal donor” type of stem cell tissue,
analogous to a universal blood donor.
However, if the SCNT technique (cloning) was employed using a cell nucleus
from the patient, stem cells created via this method would be genetically identical to
the patient, would presumably be recognized by the patient’s immune system, and
thus would avoid any tissue rejection problems that could occur in other stem cell
therapeutic approaches. Because of this, many scientists believe that the SCNT
technique may provide the best hope of eventually treating patients using stem cells
for tissue transplantation.
26
Chimeras have been created by scientists in a variety of different ways and have been the
subject of research studies for many years. Human chimeras occur naturally when two eggs
become fertilized and, instead of developing into twins, they fuse in the uterus creating a
single embryo with two distinct sets of genes. For one example, see Constance Holden,
“Chimera on a Bike?” Science, June 24, 2005, p. 1864.
CRS-9
Current Federal Regulatory Landscape
The Dickey Amendment
Prior to an August 2001 Bush Administration decision (see below), no federal
funds had been used to support research on stem cells derived from either human
embryos or fetal tissue.27 The work at the University of Wisconsin and Johns
Hopkins University was supported by private funding from the Geron Corporation.
Private funding for experiments involving embryos was required because Congress
attached a rider to legislation that affected FY1996 National Institutes of Health
(NIH) funding. The rider, an amendment originally introduced by Representative Jay
Dickey, prohibited HHS from using appropriated funds for the creation of human
embryos for research purposes or for research in which human embryos are
destroyed. The Dickey Amendment language has been added to each of the Labor,
HHS, and Education appropriations acts for FY1997 through FY2006.28 For
FY2006, the provision is found in Section 509 of the Labor, HHS and Education, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (P.L.109-149). It states that:
(a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for —
(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or
knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for
research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204(b) and Section 498(b) of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)).
(b) For purposes of this section, the term ‘human embryo or embryos’ includes
any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 [the Human
Subject Protection regulations] as of the date of enactment of this Act, that is
derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one
or more human gametes [sperm or egg] or human diploid cells [cells that have
two sets of chromosomes, such as somatic cells].
There is no similar federal prohibition on fetal tissue research; however, other
restrictions do apply.
Clinton Administration Stem Cell Policy
Following the November 1998 announcement on the derivation of human
embryonic stem cells, NIH requested a legal opinion from HHS on whether federal
27
However, federal funds have been provided for research on both human and animal adult
stem cells and animal embryonic stem cells.
28
The rider language has not changed significantly from year to year (however there was a
technical correction in P.L. 109-149). The original rider can be found in Section 128 of P.L.
104-99; it affected NIH funding for FY1996 contained in P.L. 104-91. For subsequent fiscal
years, the rider is found in Title V, General Provisions, of the Labor, HHS and Education
appropriations acts in the following public laws: FY1997, P.L. 104-208; FY1998, P.L. 10578; FY1999, P.L. 105-277; FY2000, P.L. 106-113; FY2001, P.L. 106-554; FY2002, P.L.
107-116; FY2003, P.L. 108-7; FY2004, P.L. 108-199; and, FY2005, P.L. 108-447.
CRS-10
funds could be used to support research on human stem cells derived from embryos.
The January 15, 1999, response from HHS General Counsel Harriet Rabb found that
the Dickey Amendment would not apply to research using human stem cells “because
such cells are not a human embryo within the statutory definition.” The finding was
based, in part, on the determination by HHS that the statutory ban on human embryo
research defines an embryo as an organism that when implanted in the uterus is
capable of becoming a human being. Human stem cells are not and cannot develop
into an organism; they lack the capacity to become organisms even if they are
transferred to a uterus. As a result, HHS maintained that NIH could support research
that uses stem cells derived through private funds, but could not support research that
itself, with federal funds, derives stem cells from embryos because of the federal ban
in the Dickey Amendment.
Shortly after the opinion by the HHS General Counsel was released, NIH
disclosed that the agency planned to fund research on stem cells derived from human
embryos once appropriate guidelines were developed and an oversight committee
established. NIH Director Harold Varmus appointed a working group that began
drafting guidelines in April 1999. Draft guidelines were published in the Federal
Register on December 2, 1999. About 50,000 comments were received during the
public comment period, which ended February 22, 2000. On August 25, 2000, NIH
published in the Federal Register final guidelines on the support of human
embryonic stem cell research. The guidelines stated that studies utilizing “stem cells
derived from human embryos may be conducted using NIH funds only if the cells
were derived (without federal funds) from human embryos that were created for the
purposes of fertility treatment and were in excess of the clinical need of the
individuals seeking such treatment.” Under the guidelines, NIH would not fund
research directly involving the derivation of human stem cells from embryos; this
was prohibited by the Dickey Amendment.
Other areas of research ineligible for NIH funding under the guidelines include
(1) research in which human stem cells are utilized to create or contribute to a human
embryo; (2) research in which human stem cells are combined with an animal
embryo; (3) research in which human stem cells are used for reproductive cloning of
a human; (4) research in which human stem cells are derived using somatic cell
nuclear transfer, i.e., the transfer of a human somatic cell nucleus into a human or
animal egg; (5) research utilizing human stem cells that were derived using somatic
cell nuclear transfer; and (6) research utilizing stem cells that were derived from
human embryos created for research purposes, rather than for infertility treatment.
NIH began accepting grant applications for research projects utilizing human
stem cells immediately following publication of the guidelines; the deadline for
submitting a grant application was March 15, 2001. All such applications were to be
reviewed by the NIH Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Review Group (HPSCRG),
which was established to ensure compliance with the guidelines. James Kushner,
director of the University of Utah General Clinical Research Center, served briefly
as chair of the HPSCRG. Applications would also have undergone the normal NIH
CRS-11
peer-review process.29 The first meeting of the HPSCRG was scheduled for April 25,
2001. The HPSCRG was to conduct an ethical review of human pluripotent stem
cell lines to determine whether the research groups involved had followed the NIH
guidelines in deriving the cell lines. However, in mid April 2001, HHS postponed
the meeting until a review of the Clinton Administration’s policy decisions on stem
cell research was completed by the new Bush Administration.30 According to media
sources, the 12 HPSCRG members, whose names were not made public, represented
a wide range of scientific, ethical and theological expertise and opinion, as well as
at least one “mainstream Catholic.”31
The Bush Administration conducted a legal review of the policy decisions made
during the Clinton Administration regarding federal support of stem cell research, as
well as a scientific review, prepared by NIH, of the status of the research and its
applications. The scientific review was released on July 18, 2001, at a hearing on
stem cell research held by the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health
and Human Services and Education.32 The NIH report did not make any
recommendations, but argued that both embryonic and adult stem cell research
should be pursued.
Bush Administration Stem Cell Policy
On August 9, 2001, President Bush announced that for the first time federal
funds would be used to support research on human embryonic stem cells, but funding
would be limited to “existing stem cell lines where the life and death decision has
already been made.”33 President Bush stated that the decision “allows us to explore
the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral
line, by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further
destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.” The President
29
According to media sources, as of Apr. 2001 only three grant applications had been
submitted to NIH, and one was subsequently withdrawn. (Washington FAX, Apr. 19, 2001.)
Presumably, scientists were reluctant to invest the time and effort into preparing the
necessary paperwork for the NIH grant application process when the prospects of receiving
federal funding were uncertain under the new Bush Administration. (P. Recer, “Stem Cell
Studies Said Hurt by Doubt,” AP Online, May 2, 2001.) In a related development, one of
the leading U.S. researchers on stem cells, Roger Pederson of the University of California,
San Francisco, decided to move his laboratory to the United Kingdom for “the possibility
of carrying out my research with human embryonic stem cells with public support.” (Aaron
Zitner, “Uncertainty Is Thwarting Stem Cell Researchers,” Los Angeles Times, July 16,
2001, pp. A1, A8.) Human embryonic stem cell research was approved overwhelmingly by
the House of Commons in Dec. 2000 and the House of Lords in Jan. 2001.
30
Rick Weiss, “Bush Administration Order Halts Stem Cell Meeting; NIH Planned Session
to Review Fund Requests,” Washington Post, Apr. 21, 2001, p. A2.
31
Ibid.
32
National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services. Stem Cells:
Scientific Progress and Future Research Directions, June 2001. The NIH scientific report
can be found at [http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/].
33
The Aug. 9, 2001, Remarks by the President on Stem Cell Research can be found at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html].
CRS-12
also stated that the federal government would continue to support research involving
stem cells from other sources, such as umbilical cord blood, placentas, and adult and
animal tissues, “which do not involve the same moral dilemma.”
Under the Bush policy, federal funds may only be used for research on existing
stem cell lines that were derived (1) with the informed consent of the donors; (2)
from excess embryos created solely for reproductive purposes; and (3) without any
financial inducements to the donors.34 NIH was tasked with examining the derivation
of all existing stem cell lines and creating a registry of those lines that satisfy the
Bush Administration criteria. According to the White House, this will ensure that
federal funds are used to support only stem cell research that is scientifically sound,
legal, and ethical. Federal funds will not be used for (1) the derivation or use of stem
cell lines derived from newly destroyed embryos; (2) the creation of any human
embryos for research purposes; or (3) the cloning of human embryos for any purpose.
Agency Regulation: FDA and NIH
Many entities and individuals that conduct research on humans (“human
subjects” research) are both federally and institutionally regulated. Ex vivo embryos
(those not in a uterus) are not considered “human subjects” for these purposes,
though federally funded research on them is regulated by the Dickey Amendment as
described above. Stem cells and stem cell lines are not considered “human subjects,”
nor are they governed by the Dickey Amendment.
Two HHS agencies, FDA and NIH, regulate some aspects of stem cell research,
even if research on stem cell lines is not classified as “human subjects” research.
FDA, the agency that ensures the safety and efficacy of food, drugs, medical devices
and cosmetics, regulates stem cell research aimed at the development of any
“product” subject to its approval. NIH, the medical and behavioral research agency
within HHS, regulates stem cell research that it funds in compliance with President
Bush’s 2001 policy. In accordance, NIH has created a Human Embryonic Stem Cell
Registry that lists the human embryonic stem cell lines that meet the eligibility
criteria as outlined in the Bush Administration stem cell policy.
FDA Regulation. All of the human embryonic stem cell lines listed on the
NIH Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry (see Table 2) have been grown on beds
of mouse “feeder” cells. The mouse cells secrete a substance that prevents the human
embryonic stem cells from differentiating into more mature cell types (nerve or
muscle cells). Infectious agents, such as viruses, within the mouse feeder cells could
transfer into the human cells. If the human cells were transplanted into a patient,
these infected human cells may cause disease in the patient which could be
transmitted to close contacts of the patient and eventually to the general population.
Public health officials and regulatory agencies such as the FDA are specifically
concerned about retroviruses, which may remain hidden in the DNA only to cause
disease many years later, as well as any unrecognized agents which may be present
in the mouse cells.
34
The White House, Fact Sheet on Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Aug. 9, 2001, found at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-1.html].
CRS-13
The FDA defines “xenotransplantation” as “any procedure that involves the
transplantation, implantation, or infusion into a human recipient of either (a) live
cells, tissues, or organs from a nonhuman source, or (b) human body fluids, cells,
tissues or organs that have had ex vivo contact with live nonhuman animal cells,
tissues or organs.”35 So transplantation therapy involving Bush approved stem cell
lines, which all have been exposed to mouse feeder cells, would constitute
xenotransplantation. Xenotransplantation products are subject to regulation by the
FDA under Section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 USC 262) and the
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 USC 321 et seq.). FDA has developed
guidance documents and the U.S. Public Health Service has developed guidelines on
infectious disease issues associated with xenotransplantation.36
During a Senate hearing on stem cell research held by the Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions Committee on September 5, 2001, HHS Secretary Thompson
stated that the FDA is overseeing 17 investigational protocols involving
xenotransplantation in other areas of clinical research that involve patients.
Therefore, the xenotransplantation-related public health concerns over the human
embryonic stem cell lines may not necessarily preclude the development of
treatments for patients. While the problems presented by xenotransplantation for
clinical research are neither unique to stem cell research nor insurmountable, many
scientists believe it will be preferable to use sterile cell lines when attempting to treat
patients via stem cell transplantation, and scientists have been successful in
developing human embryonic stem cells that can be maintained without the use of
mouse feeder cells.37
NIH Research Funding and Stem Cell Registry. The August 9, 2001,
Bush Administration policy statement on stem cell research and the NIH Stem Cell
Registry effectively replaced the NIH stem cell guidelines that were developed under
the Clinton Administration and never fully implemented. Grant proposals for
embryonic stem cell research undergo only the normal peer-review process without
the added review of the HPSCRG as had been specified under the Clinton NIH stem
cell guidelines. In February 2002, NIH announced the approval of the first
expenditures for research on human embryonic stem cells. Funding for stem cell
research by NIH is shown in Table 1. The NIH website provides additional
information about current stem cell activities and funding opportunities.38
The NIH Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry lists stem cell lines that are
eligible for use in federally funded research and currently available to be shipped to
35
Xenotransplantation Action Plan: FDA approach to the regulation of xenotransplantation.
Available at [http://www.fda.gov/cber/xap/xap.htm].
36
These documents are available at [http://www.fda.gov/cber/xap/xap.htm].
37
National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Stem Cells:
Scientific Progress and Future Research Directions, June 2001, pp. 95-96; Susanne Rust,
“UW Grows Animal-Free Stem Cell Lines,” The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Jan. 2, 2006,
p. A1.
38
See [http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/funding/].
CRS-14
scientists.39 As shown in Table 2, the NIH registry originally listed universities and
companies that had derived a total of 78 human embryonic stem cell lines which
were eligible for use in federally funded research under the August 2001 Bush
Administration policy. However, many of these stem cell lines were found to be
either unavailable or unsuitable for research. As of August 11, 2004, the NIH
registry listed a total of 22 stem cell lines available from seven sources.
Table 1. National Institutes of Health Funding
($ in millions)
FY99
FY00
FY01 FY02
FY03
FY04 FY05
FY06
Stem cell research
$226
$256
$306
$387
$517
$553
$566
$568
Human embryonic
stem cell research
(0)
(0)
(0)
(10.7)
(20)
(24)
(24.3)
N/A
Source: NIH Budget Office, May 3, 2005.
Table 2. NIH List of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines
Eligible for Use in Federal Research
Number of stem cell
lines
Namea
Eligible
Available
BresaGen, Inc., Athens, GA
4
3
Cell & Gene Therapy Institute (Pochon CHA University), Seoul,
Korea
2
Cellaritis AB, Goteborg, Sweden
3
2
CyThera, Inc., San Diego, CA
9
0
ES Cell International, Melbourne, Australia
6
6
Geron Corporation, Menlo Park, CA
7
Goteborg University, Goteborg, Sweden
16
Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
6
Maria Biotech Co. Ltd. — Maria Infertility Hospital Medical
Institute, Seoul, Korea
3
MizMedi Hospital — Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
1
National Center for Biological Sciences/Tata Institute of
Fundamental Research, Bangalore, India
3
Reliance Life Sciences, Mumbai, India
7
Technion University, Haifa, Israel
4
3
University of California, San Francisco, CA
2
2
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, Madison, WI
5
5
78
22
Total
39
0
1
Information about the NIH Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry is available at
[http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/index.asp].
CRS-15
a. Entities in italics do not have stem cell lines available for shipment to U.S. researchers because of
a variety of scientific, regulatory and legal reasons. The zeros entered in the “Available”
column indicate that “the cells failed to expand into undifferentiated cell cultures.”
Concerns Over Access to Stem Cell Lines
Many scientists, disease advocates and others remain concerned that federally
supported research on human embryonic stem cells is limited to the number of cell
lines that meet the criteria of the August 9, 2001 Bush policy. As stated above,
currently 22 cell lines are available for research with federal dollars, and an
unpublished NIH report indicates that under a best case scenario, a total of 23 human
embryonic stem cell lines will ever be ready for use in research.40 Because the preAugust 9 cell lines were developed in the early days of human stem cell research
using older 1990s techniques, the cell lines not only have the problems of
xenotransplantion (described in the previous section on FDA regulation), but they are
harder to work with, not well characterized, and genetically unstable.
In reaction to the limitations imposed by the Bush policy, some U.S. research
groups have decided to develop additional human embryonic stem cell lines using
private funding.
Reproductive Genetics Institute
In June 2004, a team of scientists at the Reproductive Genetics Institute, a
private fertility clinic in Chicago, announced that they had isolated 50 new human
embryonic stem cell lines from frozen embryos that were donated by patients
following fertility treatment.41 By using genetic diagnosis techniques, the Chicago
team was able to create stem cell lines that carry the gene for muscular dystrophy as
well as stem cell lines with the gene for six other diseases.42 The new stem cell lines
are to be used to understand the origins of disease-related symptoms and to develop
and test new treatments.
Harvard Stem Cell Institute
In March 2004, a Harvard University laboratory headed by Douglas Melton
announced that using private research dollars they had isolated 17 new human
embryonic stem cell lines.43 One year later the Harvard team has increased that
40
Farhad Manjoo, “Thou Shalt Not Make Scientific Progress,” Salon.com, Mar. 25, 2004,
[http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/03/25/stem_cells/index_np.html].
41
Gareth Cook, “Clinic in U.S. Isolates 50 Lines of Stem Cells,” Boston Globe, June 9,
2004, p. A1.
42
The six diseases are beta thalassemia, neurofibromatosis type 1, Marfan’s syndrome,
myotonic dystrophy, fragile X syndrome, and Fanconi’s anemia.
43
Rick Weiss and Justin Gillis, “New Embryonic Stem Cells Made Available,” Washington
Post, Mar. 4, 2004, p. A2.
CRS-16
number to 28 new human embryonic stem cell lines.44 In order to perform this work
it was necessary to build a new laboratory so that the group’s federally funded
research would be conducted separately from research on the new stem cell lines.
Likewise, although the Harvard stem cell lines are available for use by other
laboratories, any research using the new stem cell lines must be performed at a
facility that does not receive federal support. The Harvard group intends to raise
$100 million in private funding to establish a stem cell research institute in order to
continue the work begun by Melton and his group of scientists; as of March 2005 $26
million had been raised. In October 2004 media reports stated that researchers at the
newly formed Harvard Stem Cell Institute intend to produce cloned human embryos
for research studies on juvenile diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and several other
diseases.45 In November 2003 Melton and collaborators submitted their proposal to
a Harvard committee composed of ethicists, scientists and public policy experts.
Permission to proceed with the research was granted in January 2005 provided that
approval was received from the Standing Committee on the Use of Human Subjects
in Research.46
Stanford Institute for Cancer/Stem Cell Biology
In December 2002, Stanford University announced that a gift of $12 million
from an anonymous donor would be used to establish an institute that will use
expertise in stem cell biology and cancer biology to develop novel treatments for
cancer and other diseases.47 The new institute is headed by Dr. Irving Weissman, a
Professor in Cancer Biology at Stanford. Scientists at the Institute for Cancer/Stem
Cell Biology and Medicine are developing new stem cell lines, some through the
process of SCNT, to study the disease process of a wide range of disorders including
cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disease, allergies, and
neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s and Lou Gehrig’s disease. Initial studies
are performed in mice; however, the work may be extended to human cells and eggs.
The new stem cell lines may allow investigators to better understand the biological
and genetic basis of a disorder and thereby develop new treatments.
UCSF Developmental and Stem Cell Biology Program
In August 2002, the University of California at San Francisco established the
UCSF Developmental and Stem Cell Biology Program with a $5 million matching
grant from Andy Grove, the chairman of Intel Corporation. The program funds basic
studies (using both animal and human cells) in stem cell biology and their translation
into clinical practice with a goal of developing treatments for such diseases as
diabetes, cardiovascular disease, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease and spinal
44
Gareth Cook, “Harvard Provost OKs Procedure,” Boston Globe, Mar. 20, 2005, p. A29.
(Hereafter cited as Cook, “Harvard Provost OKs Procedure.”)
45
Gareth Cook, “Harvard Team Wants OK to Clone; Human-Cell Work Would Be First in
Nation,” Boston Globe, Oct. 13, 2004, p. A1.
46
47
Cook, “Harvard Provost OKs Procedure.”
For further information, see the Stanford University Medical Center website at
[http://mednews.stanford.edu/stemcellQA.html].
CRS-17
cord injury. UCSF and the University of Wisconsin are the only two universities in
the United States that have derived human embryonic stem cell lines that qualified
for inclusion on the NIH Stem Cell Registry. This past winter, the new UCSF stem
cell program announced it had met the Grove “Stem Cell Challenge” and had raised
the total funding for the program to more than $11 million in gifts and matching
funds. The program recently awarded $50,000 grants to four scientists who are
studying various aspects of stem cell biology.48
Worldwide Survey of Stem Cell Lines
A worldwide survey of laboratories conducted by the Boston Globe found that
as of May 23, 2004, 128 human embryonic stem cell lines had been created since
August 9, 2001; all would be ineligible for use in federally funded research under the
Bush policy on stem cell research.49 More lines are being created in laboratories
overseas than in the United States, according to the survey. The survey found that
94 were created in labs outside the United States and 34 were created in this country.
Of the 128 lines, 51 of the new stem cell lines are currently available for use, the
remaining cell lines are not available for a variety of technical or legal reasons. For
example, some cell lines have not yet been fully characterized to determine their
stability or suitability for research. However, eventually their status is to be
determined by using laboratory techniques. In Japan, stem cell lines are not allowed
to be shipped to laboratories in other countries. In the United Kingdom, stem cell
lines cannot be shipped abroad until they have been processed by the new UK Stem
Cell Bank.50
Congressional Letters on Bush Policy
In response to concerns over access to human embryonic stem cell lines, in April
2004, a group of over 200 Members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to
President Bush requesting that the Administration revise the current stem cell policy
and utilize the embryos that are created in excess of need during the treatment of
infertile couples.51 The letter points out that an estimated 400,000 frozen IVF
embryos52 “will likely be destroyed if not donated, with informed consent of the
couple, for research.” According to the letter,
48
UCSF News Office, UCSF Names First Director of its Stem Cell Biology Program, Apr.
26, 2004. See [http://pub.ucsf.edu/newsservices/releases/200404261/].
49
Gareth Cook, “94 New Cell Lines Created Abroad since Bush Decision,” Boston Globe,
May 23, 2004, p. A14.
50
For further information on the UK Stem Cell Bank, see [http://www.nibsc.ac.uk/divisions/
cbi/stemcell.html].
51
52
See [http://www.house.gov/degette/news/releases/040428.pdf].
A survey conducted in 2002 and published in 2003 by the Society for Assisted
Reproductive Technology and RAND determined that nearly 400,000 frozen embryos are
stored in the United States, but most are currently targeted for patient use. See David I.
Hoffman et al., “Cryopreserved Embryos in the United States and Their Availability for
Research,” Fertility and Sterility, vol. 79, May 2003, pp. 1063-1069.
CRS-18
scientists are reporting that it is increasingly difficult to attract new scientists to
this area of research because of concerns that funding restrictions will keep this
research from being successful. ... We have already seen researchers move to
countries like the United Kingdom, which have more supportive policies. In
addition, leadership in this area of research has shifted to the United Kingdom,
which sees this scientific area as the cornerstone of its biotech industry.
Under the direction of the White House, NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni sent
a letter in response to the House Members which restates the Bush Administration
position against using federal funds for research involving the destruction of human
embryos.53 The letter from NIH Director Zerhouni did contain the following sentence
which some observers believe indicates a potential future policy shift: “And
although it is fair to say that from a purely scientific perspective more cell lines may
well speed some areas of human embryonic stem cell research, the president’s
position is still predicated on his belief that taxpayer funds should not ‘sanction or
encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for
life.”54 Although White House spokesperson Claire Buchan stated that the sentence
does not indicate the president’s position has changed, supporters of stem cell
research point out that it concedes that science could benefit from additional stem
cell lines and that the president’s position now rests solely on ethical arguments.
A letter signed by 58 Senators urging President Bush to expand the current
federal policy concerning embryonic stem cell research was sent on June 4, 2004.55
The letter states that “despite the fact that U.S. scientists were the first to derive
human embryonic stem cells, leadership in this area of research is shifting to other
countries such as the United Kingdom, Singapore, South Korea and Australia.”
On July 14, 2004, HHS Secretary Thompson announced in a letter to Speaker
of the House Dennis Hastert that NIH would establish Centers of Excellence in
Translational Stem Cell Research.56 The new centers will be funded by $18 million
in grants over a four year period and will investigate how stem cells can be used to
treat a variety of diseases. NIH will also create a National Embryonic Stem Cell
Bank that will collect in one location many of the stem cell lines that are eligibl