SITNFlash

A number of new developments in the news recently illustrate how stem cell research is moving forward despite federal restrictions on the use of governmental monies to fund stem cell research. In this issue of SITNFlash, we will examine the political and ethical questions posed by this push towards private funding to continue research into embryonic stem cells.

New Private Funding Initiatives Keep Embryonic Stem Cell Research Alive

Stem cells are of keen interest to scientists as they may be capable of transforming into almost any type of cell in the body, unlike most other cells. This quality is crucial for a new wave of therapies to treat a wide variety of diseases, including diabetes, Parkinson disease, and leukemia. Although stem cells can be isolated from both adult and embryonic tissue, embryonic stem cells are the most promising as they may have the most flexibility in the cells they are able to generate.

The use of these cells is controversial as they can only be harvested from a very early human embryo that is destroyed by the isolation process. Although most of these cell lines have been generated from leftover embryos from in-vitro fertility treatments which likely would have been destroyed, the promise of these cells for saving lives must be tempered with the ethical implications of their generation. This debate led President Bush to place a moratorium on the creation of new embryonic stem cell lines using federal monies in August of 2001. Instead, Bush cited approximately 70 cell lines that had already been created prior to the announcement as open for researchers to continue their research.

In retrospect, however, the issue appears less clear. Of the cell lines that Bush approved for continuing research, many were in early stages and unfit for research. Additionally, the cells are not identical, and one cell line may not be suitable for both diabetes and Parkinson research, for example. Thus, many scientists have been seeking additional cell lines that are crucial for their research. To date, only slightly over a dozen of the 70 cell lines identified in 2001 are available for research purposes.

New sources of funding

Therefore, many institutions have been looking toward private funding to continue this search for additional stem cells. This is not a trivial pursuit; the federal government is the largest funding body for science in the world, and the vast majority of scientists rely upon public funds to do research into a wide variety of areas. Scientists who decide to continue stem cell research with private funding are ineligible for federal funding for any project under their control – even projects which are separate from their stem cell research. A researcher who wants to investigate the use of stem cells in diabetes, for example, is ineligible to use federal money to fund more traditional approaches that do not concern stem cells.

This has forced many research institutions, such as Stanford, the University of California – San Francisco, University of Wisconsin, and Harvard to take it upon themselves to build – and fund – their own institutes for stem cell research, as each of these universities have recently announced. While many would argue that these schools have both the clout and funds necessary for such an endeavor, the President's decision may have created an unintended effect – by forcing such privatization, the government has been removed from any role it might have in monitoring research at such institutes.

Dr. Douglas Melton of Harvard University announced recently the creation of an additional 17 cell lines which he indicates will be shared freely with the scientific community, cell lines created from discarded fertility treatments with the owner's consent. This more than doubles the number of lines available for research to scientists across the world. Melton also notes that these cells are more easily cultivated and appear more stable than previous cell lines available for research. However, the caveat is that these cells were created after the moratorium date, and thus any researcher who wishes to use these lines must use private funding for their entire research program. For many scientists, this poses an intense dilemma – continue research at the risk of not being able to secure funding, or ignore the possibilities continued research into embryonic stem cells may provide.

A shift in public opinion?

Interestingly, a number of developments in the political realm may indicate that public opinion upon stem cell research may be shifting. New Jersey has pledged millions of dollars in state funds to support embryonic stem cell research. Even more ambitious is a proposal being floated in California which proposes a three billion dollar bond issue to support embryonic research. According to reports, at least five additional states are examining funding in similar manners to New Jersey and California.

The developments have caused some to argue for a re-examination of federal policies regarding research, citing the current system as actually doing more harm to scientific progress than good. On the other hand, an equal number of groups, including conservative and anti-abortion groups, oppose any relaxing of current restrictions.

The stark reality is that this debate is far from over, and surely one that will only intensify as the actual benefits of embryonic stem cells, which at the time of Bush's announcement were mostly only lofty promises, begin to materialize. As we more fully understand these implications, one hopes that our understanding of how to draw the line between preserving the sanctity of human life and promoting research to save lives will become more clear.

Lastly, it is worth noting that the stem cell issue is entirely separate from that of reproductive cloning – the practice of cloning to generate another human being that is almost universally rejected by scientists and politicians alike. Whatever the outcome, one fact is undeniable: scientific progress, whether upon the nature of planetary motion, the Manhattan Project, or stem cell research will continue, no matter what the obstacles. The question that remains is how to shape this progress so that it occurs in a responsible, and accountable, manner.