Posted on Jul 11, 2006 | by Staff

WASHINGTON (BP)--The United States Senate is expected to vote the week of July 17-21 on three bills regarding human embryo research, including a controversial measure that would fund destructive, stem cell experiments.

Under an agreement approved June 29 without dissent, the Senate will consider the following, three-bill package:

-- The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, H.R. 810, which was passed last year by the House of Representatives and would provide federal funds for stem cell research that destroys embryos created in fertility clinics;

-- The Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, S. 3504, which would bar the acceptance of tissue from an embryo implanted or developed in a woman or animal for research purposes;

-- The Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, S. 2754, which would promote the development of embryo-like stem cells without creating or knowingly harming embryos.

In preparation for the Senate’s consideration of the bills, here are some commonly asked questions, with answers, concerning stem cell research.

-- What are stem cells?

Stem cells are the body’s master cells that can develop into other cells and tissues. The remarkable ability of stem cells has given hope for the development of cures for a variety of diseases and other ailments. However, only non-embryonic stem cell research (which does not destroy human embryos) has produced any treatments for medical conditions.

-- Why is stem cell research controversial?

The source of stem cells determines whether such research is controversial. There appears to be universal support for research using stem cells that are obtained from non-embryonic sources such as umbilical cord blood, placentas, fat and bone marrow. The procurement of stem cells from these sources does not harm the donor. Strong disagreement ensues over experiments using stem cells collected from human embryos. The current process of extracting stem cells from embryos results in the destruction of the nascent human beings, an action opposed by most people who believe in the sanctity of life from conception.

-- Has embryonic stem cell research (which destroys human embryos) produced remedies in human beings?

No. Embryonic stem cell research has experienced only failures, including the worsening of Parkinson's symptoms in one human test group. Since 1998, when researchers first isolated embryonic stem cells, there has been no report of a successful treatment for any human being using this type of cells. Research using embryonic stem cells has been problematic. The cells have proven difficult to control. Unlike stem cells that have the same person as the donor and the recipient, therapies with embryonic stem cells will have to overcome the problem of rejection by the immune systems of recipients, according to the National Institutes of Health.

-- Has non-embryonic stem cell research produced remedies in human beings?

Yes. Doctors have transferred stem cells in bone marrow transplants for more than 40 years, according to NIH. Research using non-embryonic stem cells has provided treatments for numerous medical conditions, including spinal cord injuries, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, sickle cell anemia, lupus, strokes, Parkinson’s disease, Crohn’s disease, heart damage and some types of cancer. Non-embryonic stem cells have been used to treat 70 different ailments, according to Do No Harm: The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics. Remarkably, there are three documented cases of paraplegics regaining the ability to walk after having undergone non-embryonic stem cell treatment.

-- Given the ethical problem and the unfruitful results, why is there such a strong campaign for embryonic stem cell research?

NIH, most scientists and the biotechnology industry contend embryonic stem cells have more therapeutic potential than their non-embryonic counterparts, because ESCs have the ability to develop into all types of cells. Non-embryonic stem cells, however, have demonstrated a capacity to develop into more cell types than was earlier believed possible. In addition, the strength of the arguments by the promoters of ESC research has not been supported by the priorities of the multi-billion-dollar biotechnology industry, which has invested much more in non-embryonic stem cell research.

-- Is embryonic stem cell research illegal?

No. There is no serious legislative effort to enact a national ban on embryonic stem cell research. The question being debated at the federal level is whether the government will fund research using embryonic stem cells.

-- What is the federal government’s policy on funding stem cell research?

The federal government does not fund stem cell research that destroys human embryos. President Bush announced this policy in August 2001. The president’s policy permits funding for research on embryonic stem cell lines in existence at the time of his announcement. Funding for such research comes “where the life-and-death decision has already been made,” Bush said at the time. The federal government also provides funds for research using stem cells from non-embryonic sources.

-- How would the bill passed by the House of Representatives in 2005 change this?

If it were to become law, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act would weaken the president’s policy and allow funding for research on stem cells obtained from frozen embryos stored at in vitro fertilization clinics. Representatives voted 238-194 for that bill, which is sponsored by Rep. Michael Castle, R.-Del. Many opponents of embryonic stem cell research believe enactment of such a law would be the first step toward the cloning of embryos for purposes of stem cell research.

-- Will the Senate also approve the bill?

It appears a majority of senators will vote for it. Sen. Arlen Specter, R.-Pa., sponsor of an identical Senate version, has indicated there are more than enough votes for passage of the House-approved bill.

-- What will President Bush do if the bill reaches his desk?

Bush has promised to veto it.

-- Will Congress be able to override a presidential veto?

There is practically no chance of an override. In the Senate, Specter has said he believes he has enough votes for the two-thirds majority required for an override. The House, however, fell about 50 votes short of a two-thirds majority in its vote for passage. It is virtually certain the bill’s supporters would be unable to make up that shortfall in an override vote.
--30--