Bills would OK federal funds for more stem cell lines

Washington -- Some lawmakers would like to see the federal government change its tune on stem cell research funding.

Bipartisan congressional legislation was recently introduced in the House and Senate that would allow federal funding for more stem cell lines, while imposing criteria designed to ensure that strict protocols are followed in obtaining and handling the embryos from which the cells would be taken.

Federal money is important not only as a reliable source of funding but also to provide appropriate oversight and protections, said Eric Ruby, MD, a Massachusetts pediatrician. Dr. Ruby became involved in efforts to increase government support for such studies after his son was hit by a car and paralyzed.

"As a physician, this is important on a professional level," he said. "But as a father, there is nothing worse than not being able to get your child healthy."

AMA policy supports therapeutic stem cell research, but not reproductive research. But the Association also recognizes that some physicians might have moral objections to such research.

There is significant public backing for opening up federal funds to more stem cell studies. For example, in a March poll conducted by the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, 59% of those surveyed favored embryonic stem cell research, and 33% were opposed to it. The coalition advocates for regenerative medicine research, including that on stem cells.

The public support has helped drive a concerted effort by lawmakers, researchers and patient advocates to reverse Bush administration policy limiting federal study funds to stem cell lines that had been established before August 2001. At that time, there were thought to be 78 lines that qualified, but many of those lines have proven to be tainted. Some experts contend that all of them are of relatively poor quality compared with what can be obtained with current techniques.

The House bill, sponsored by Reps. Michael Castle (R, Del.) and Diana DeGette (D, Colo.), would require the Dept. of Health and Human Services to conduct and support stem cell research that met certain criteria.

One requirement is that embryos used to derive stem cells were originally created for fertility treatments. A second is that individuals for whom the embryos were created have determined that the embryos will not be implanted and will otherwise be discarded. And third is that individuals for whom the embryos were created have provided written consent for their donation.

House leaders have promised to allow a floor vote on the measure. The fate of a Senate companion bill is less clear, as is whether President Bush would be willing to sign such legislation, experts said.

States move ahead

Meanwhile, several states are getting in on the act, trying to fill the current vacuum in federal funding by putting up state dollars and otherwise creating a stem cell research-friendly environment. Californians made news last November by approving a measure to dedicate $3 billion to stem cell research in the state, following on the heels of New Jersey, which is currently the hub of such research.

Legislatures in Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington and other states are considering measures to promote stem cell research.

Although several of these proposals would raise state dollars for such studies, others are simply designed to relax the research environment.

For example, the Massachusetts bill, which is expected ultimately to be approved, would remove the requirement that stem cell researchers first obtain the approval of the state's district attorney. It also would give the state health department more regulatory control over the handling of embryos for stem cell study.

These types of measures are needed to create a research-friendly environment while imposing appropriate government oversight that would allow stem cell research to progress within ethical boundaries, experts said.

Therapeutic stem cell research holds the promise of not only treating injury and chronic illness but also curing them, Dr. Ruby said. That is something physicians shouldn't overlook in this debate. "It is a fundamental principle of medicine to alleviate suffering," he said.