Congressional Briefing on Stem Cell Research
By  Danielle Bonitatibus

On July 12^th, Senator Specter (R-PA) and Senator Harkin (D-IA) held their 16^th hearing on government funding for stem cell research in the Subcomittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies.  The hearing was on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 (H.R. 810), a bill that recently passed the House that would amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research.  The bill now awaits a vote in the Senate. 

The hearing opened with Senator Specter, a two-time cancer survivor who was most recently diagnosed with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, expressing his concern for the future of embryonic stem cell research.  He briefly detailed the shortcomings of the August 9, 2001 ban on federal funding for stem cells.  Senator Stevens, a prostate-cancer survivor, followed with similar concerns and support for stem cell research and called for health to be America’s number one priority.  Senator Harkin opened with similar apprehensions, emphasizing the White House’s intensions to defeat HR 810.  The Bush Administration is currently stressing alternate methods, which have not been proven to be successful and still await a long road of research ahead. 

Following the senator’s opening statements, Dr. Battey, chairman of the National Institutes of Health Stem Cell Task Force, outlined four alternative options to stem cell research:   

Pluripotent Stem Cells from Dead Embryos

When a couple is incapable of fertilization, the common option chosen is human invitro fertilization (IVF).  During IVF, the embryos that do not divide and are unable to be fertilized are believed to be “dead.”  Researchers are trying to use these “dead” cells in creating an embryonic stem cell line.  Dr. Battey stated that, “there is no published study showing that it is possible to generate an embryonic stem cell line from a non-dividing, “dead” embryo in rodents, non-human primates or humans.”  It also may be possible for the “dead” stem cells to have abnormalities or defects. 

Pluripotent Stem Cells from Biopsied Blastomeres

Another alternative method creates a stem cell line from the embryo’s blastomere cell.  The removal of a single cell, the blastomere cell, out of the 8-cell stage embryo during preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is thought by some to have no harmful effects on the embryo. The other seven cells are used for IVF.  Again, Battey stated, “there is no published scientific data that confirms the establishment of hESC lines from a single cell removed from an 8-cell stage embryo.”  Battey also noted that cells need other surrounding cells for survival; therefore, the odds of a hESC surviving from a single cell are very poor.  Furthermore, this alternate method is not free from ethical concerns.  The cells removed at the 8-cell stage are totipotent, which some would argue means that these cells are embryos. 

Pluripotent Stem Cells from Biological Artifacts

 A recent study by Dr. William Hurlbut at Stanford University has claimed another alternative to stem cell research.  Dr. Battey described this process as “a somatic cell in culture, [which] may be genetically modified and then used as the source of a nucleus and genome for somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) into a human oocyte.”  This method is also referred to as Altered Nuclear Transfer (ANT).  Once the transfer is complete, the oocyte will develop into a blastocyte and develop a hESC line.  Dr. William Hurlbut argued that the cell generated by SCNT do not have the ability to develop into the embryonic cells which become the placenta and umbilical cord, therefore it is not a human embryo. Dr. Battey argued, “regardless, no one has demonstrated that it is possible to execute the sequence of steps proposed by Dr. Hurlbut and obtain a pluripotent, genetically stable stem cell line.” 

Pluripotent Stem Cells by Reprogramming Somatic Cells

The last alternative method Dr. Battey discussed proposes a method that reprograms human somatic cells to “dedifferentiate them back into pluripotent stem cells.”  Dr Battey reported that this process may be possible in the future, but will be difficult to “discover a way to reverse cell differentiation all the way back to pluripotency, but not further back to totipotency.” Ethical concerns would be raised if the process created a totipotent cell (cloned human zygote).

Following Dr. Battey’s testimony, four scientists testified on these alternative research proposals and their opinion on government funding.  Robert Lanza, Vice President of medical and scientific research for Advanced Cell Technology, agreed that the H.R. 810 bill should be passed.  However, Dr. Lanza also stated he believes that alternative methods should be funded simultaneously in order to explore all possible methods.  Dr. Hurlbut of Stanford University argued that alternative research should be funded before embryonic stem cell research.  Senator Harkin responded with the following statement: " [What] we're discussing today [the alternative methods] hasn't been published in a single scientific journal. It hasn't even cleared the peer review process. It hasn't been tried in mice. We're a long way from proving it works with human embryos."

The hearing closed with some final remarks; Harkin emphasized on the lack of education and knowledge on the subject, saying he believes that there are too many people that do not understand embryonic stem cell research and make ethical judgments without the proper knowledge.  Harkin closed reiterating the urgency of finding cures now saying “people we love are dying from Parkinson’s and ALS.  Children are suffering from juvenile diabetes.  People are losing the ability to walk due to spinal cord injuries.  They don’t have 10 years to wait and see if these alternative methods pan out. They need help now.”