Ethical Embryonic Stem Cell Research Holds Greatest Promise

WASHINGTON– Energy and Commerce Committee Vice Chair Diana DeGette (D-CO), thechief architect of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, todayunveiled her new legislative strategy aimed at reversing PresidentGeorge W. Bush's 2001 restrictive stem cell research policy. Despitetwo Presidential vetoes, DeGette highlighted the need to pursueembryonic stem cell research under a strict ethical framework in theUnited States during the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee'sfirst hearing on stem cell research entitled, "Stem Cell Science: TheFoundation for Future Cures." This is the first hearing on stem cellresearch in the House of Representatives since the enactment of thePresident's 2001 restrictive policy.

"Mr.Chairman, I want to thank you for holding today's hearing on the futureof stem cell research. Over the past year there have been manyimportant developments in the field of cell-based scientific research. We saw breakthroughs and accomplishments that couldn't have beenpredicted even months before they happened—insulin producing isletcells created from embryonic stem cells, induced pluripotent stem cells(IPS) developed from adult skin cells, and monkey embryonic stem cellsgenerated through somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). All of whichproves that one can rarely predict the outcomes of scientific researchand underscores why it is crucial to make the investment in all ethicalforms of research to begin with. This is what we are going to exploreduring this hearing: where we are now and we are going with stem cellresearch.

"Every time there has been a new discovery in sometype of research besides embryonic stem cells, the Bush Administrationsays that that it is a substitute for embryonic stem cell research. Yet, in actuality the numerous types of cell-based research are allcomplementary—they aide future developments or provide the backgroundnecessary for some yet-to-be-discovered breakthrough. It simply doesnot make sense to remove one avenue of research from the equation—weshould continue pursuing all forms of ethical research and see wherethe science takes us.

"It is important that we still pursueembryonic stem cell research, for example, since it remains the mostpromising avenue of research for certain debilitating diseases likediabetes, Parkinson's and Multiple Sclerosis. However, there is stillplenty to learn about both embryonic and induced pluripotent stemcells. Embryonic stem cells, as the vast majority of scientists agree,are currently the gold-standard for stem-cell research, and are thebasis upon which to measure the success of IPS cells. The goal of IPScell research is to make them mimic embryonic stem cells. But, how arewe ever going to know whether the IPS cells are acting like embryonicstem cells if we haven't done enough research on embryonic cells toeven know what we are looking for?

"None of the recentprogress in the adult stem cell field would have even been possiblewithout the original embryonic stem cell research. Looking forward, wesimply do not know where the advances will come from for each of themany diseases that we need to address—we do not know which will comefrom embryonic stem cell research and which will come from IPSresearch. We need to support both embryonic stem cell research and IPSresearch and let the science decide which is more promising over thelong-run.

"We do not yet fully know what the recent IPSstem cell breakthrough means in terms of application. It seems asthough it will likely prove to be a significant scientific advance. However, we do not yet know whether it will prove to be a significantmedical advance. For example, IPS cells currently remain far toodangerous for actual treatment, and we do not know whether they willever be safe for humans. Cutting-off funding for other promisingavenues of research in the meantime, would be about the mostshort-sighted things we can do. When we develop new tools, we don'tthrow out the old ones that still serve a valuable and unique purpose. Why should it be any different when it comes to medical research?

"Although we are making great progress in the field of stem cellresearch, it has not progressed as far as it might have had theAdministration instituted a cohesive federal policy for ethicaloversight of stem cell research, rather than simply banning the use offederal funding for research on embryonic stem cell lines developedafter August 9, 2001. Progress has been even further hindered becauseof inadequate resources for all research at NIH.

"With all thenew research coming down the pipeline, much of which we have yet toeven imagine, it is clear to me that we need a comprehensive, ethicaloversight framework for all cell-based research, as well as a nationalcommitment to a robust research program in the United States.

"So, in light of these issues, I have been working to develop new stemcell legislation with my dear friend Mr. Castle, who was kind enough tojoin us here today. We know that NIH is best-suited to overseeing andcoordinating all forms of ethical stem cell research. It is bestpositioned to ensure that all research meets high ethical standards, asit has long experience overseeing cutting edge research andestablishing regulations that ensure the research is done ethically. So, the new legislation will:

"Inputfrom the experts in the fields is key to crafting quality legislation,which is also part of the reason we are holding this hearing. I lookforward to a vigorous discussion here today with our witnesses aboutwhere the science is currently, where the science is likely to go inthe future, and what we, as federal lawmakers, should do in order tobest support and promote all the promising new research that ourscientists are working on.