Next Steps: Federal Funding for Stem Cell Research

by Carolynn Race

August 2005 — Prior to adjourning for the Congressional August recess, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) made a surprising announcement. In a floor speech on July 29th, he noted, "While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitations put in place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases. Therefore, I believe the President's policy should be modified. We should expand federal funding - and thus NIH oversight - and current guidelines governing stem cell research, carefully and thoughtfully staying within ethical bounds."

To Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), the sponsor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, S 471, Dr. Frist's address was the "most important speech made this year." Senator Specter added, "It's an earthquake. The majority leader has given cover to the entire Senate to vote for the bill despite a veto threat" (qtd. in Congressional Quarterly Weekly, August 1, 2005, p. 2123).

Currently, there is no federal law banning embryonic stem cell research, but there are strict restrictions on federal funding for such research. President Bush issued an executive order in August 2001 that banned federal funding for research on any embryonic stem cell lines derived after August 9, 2001.

On May 24, 2005, the House of Representatives passed an embryonic stem cell bill, HR 810, sponsored by Michael N. Castle (R-DE) and Diana DeGette (D-CO) by a vote of 238-194. HR 810 would allow federal funds to be used for research on cell lines derived from surplus embryos at in vitro fertilization clinics - only if donors give their permission and do not receive payment. President Bush, who has yet to veto any legislation, issued a veto threat on HR 810, that mirrors S 471, Senate legislation sponsored by Sens. Specter and Harkin (D-IA).

Before Dr. Frist's statement, the likelihood of passage of embryonic stem cell legislation was in doubt. Factors that had cast doubt on passage included the President's veto threat, the Senate's focus on other matters (including the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation hearings, budget reconciliation legislation, and appropriations), and competing stem cell measures in the Senate.

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) General Assembly Policy

In 2004, the 216th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) "reaffirmed the 'Ethical Guidelines for Fetal Tissue and Stem Cell Research,' approved by the 213th General Assembly (2001) in order to add the faithful voice of the PC(USA) to the rapidly progressive debate about fetal tissue and stem cell research." (Minutes, 2001, p. 849)

The 2001 statement concluded:

Therefore, the 213th General Assembly (2001) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), affirms the use of fetal tissue and embryonic tissue for vital research. Our respect for life includes respect for the embryo and fetus, and we affirm that decisions about embryos and fetuses need to be made with responsibility. Therefore, we believe that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and other faith groups should educate their members in making these very difficult ethical decisions. With careful regulation, we affirm the use of human stem cell tissue for research that may result in the restoring of health to those suffering from serious illness. We affirm our support for stem cell research, recognizing that this research moves to a new and challenging frontier. We recognize the need for continuing, informed public dialogue and equitable sharing of information of the results of stem cell research. It is only with such public dialogue and information sharing that our diverse society can build a foundation for responsible movement toward this frontier that offers enormous hope and challenge. (Minutes, p. 463)

When President Bush issued his executive order on stem cell research in 2001, the Administration anticipated that 78 stem cell lines would be eligible for federal funding. As Dr. Frist noted in his floor speech, only 22 lines are now eligible for funding - and some of those lines are contaminated or are deteriorating. He also said, "Embryonic stem cells uniquely hold specific promise for some therapies and potential cures that adult stem cells just cannot provide."

Though he has some reservations about S 471, sponsored by Sens. Specter and Harkin, particularly the need for stronger ethical safeguards, Dr. Frist said, "These shortcomings merit a thoughtful and thorough rewrite of the bill. But as insufficient as the bill as written is, it is fundamentally consistent with the principles I laid out more than four years ago. Thus, with appropriate reservations, I will support the Stem Cell Enhancement Act (S 471)."

Next Steps

Dr. Frist, who as Senate Majority Leader has much control over the timeline of Senate floor action, has yet to commit to a timetable to bring S 471 and/or other stem cell legislation to the Senate floor. He did say that the chamber would probably consider it "at some point this Congress."

S 471 currently has 40 Senate co-sponsors (for a list of co-sponsors, see page 4). Other bills that could be brought to the floor on the matter (and that some supporters of S 471 fear could draw off votes from S 471) include:

• Two bills sponsored by Senator Brownback (R-KS). S 659 would ban the creation of chimeras - organisms that contain both human and non-human cells. S 658 would ban human cloning for reproductive and research purposes, making such practices federal crimes.
• A bill that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) plans to introduce that, according to CQ Weekly, would allow research only on cell lines derived from embryos already frozen on the date of enactment.
• S 1317, sponsored by Senator Hatch (R-UT), would promote the use of umbilical cord blood cells for research and treatment. HR 2520, a House version, passed 431-1 in May.

Due to the strength of co-sponsors for S 471 and Dr. Frist's support, passage of S 471 is probable sometime in the 109th Congress. However, due to President Bush's veto threat, the likelihood that this bill will become law is still in jeopardy. To overcome a veto, the legislation would need 67 Senators to support the bill. In a July 31st appearance on "Face the Nation," Senator Specter said, "My analysis is that we have 62 votes at the present time, and we've got about 15 more people who are thinking it over*I believe that by the time the vote comes up, we'll have 67." The House would also need a 2/3 majority of its 435 members to override the veto - in its vote on HR 810, supporters were well short of the needed 2/3 majority.

Current Co-Sponsors of S 471, Sponsored by Sen. Specter (R-PA):

Sen Akaka, Daniel K. [HI] - 5/18/2005
Sen Baucus, Max [MT] - 4/25/2005
Sen Bayh, Evan [IN] - 4/25/2005
Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] - 5/25/2005
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 3/7/2005
Sen Cantwell, Maria [WA] - 3/9/2005
Sen Carper, Thomas R. [DE] - 4/11/2005
Sen Chafee, Lincoln [RI] - 3/4/2005
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] - 4/11/2005
Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] - 3/11/2005
Sen Corzine, Jon S. [NJ] - 3/7/2005
Sen Dayton, Mark [MN] - 5/18/2005
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] - 4/5/2005
Sen Dorgan, Byron L. [ND] - 5/18/2005
Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] - 3/11/2005
Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI] - 5/18/2005
Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] - 2/28/2005
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 2/28/2005
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] - 2/28/2005
Sen Inouye, Daniel K. [HI] - 3/11/2005
Sen Jeffords, James M. [VT] - 3/11/2005
Sen Johnson, Tim [SD] - 4/5/2005
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] - 2/28/2005
Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] - 4/11/2005
Sen Kohl, Herb [WI] - 5/9/2005
Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA] - 5/25/2005
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] - 3/7/2005
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] - 6/14/2005
Sen Levin, Carl [MI] - 5/25/2005
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] - 5/12/2005
Sen Lincoln, Blanche L. [AR] - 5/12/2005
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] - 5/12/2005
Sen Murray, Patty [WA] - 3/7/2005
Sen Obama, Barack [IL] - 4/11/2005
Sen Reed, Jack [RI] - 6/9/2005
Sen Reid, Harry [NV] - 6/15/2005
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 5/9/2005
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR] - 2/28/2005
Sen Snowe, Olympia J. [ME] - 5/25/2005
Sen Stabenow, Debbie [MI] - 6/8/2005

General Assembly

The following resolution was adopted by the 213th General Assembly (2001) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and was reaffirmed by the 216th General Assembly (2004). (Minutes, 2001, p. 461-464).

Resolved, That the 213th General Assembly (2001) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) approves for itself, commends to governing bodies and individual Presbyterians, and presents to the larger society for its consideration the following "Statement on the Ethical and Moral Implications of Stem Cell and Fetal Tissue Research":

Introduction

Contemporary medical research and technologies have presented humankind with complex ethical and moral realities never before envisioned. These realities bear careful review and consideration as new therapies are developed to cure diseases and illnesses. As people of faith we are called to be partners with God in healing and in the alleviation of human pain and suffering.

Human pluripotent stem cells, more commonly known simply as stem cells, are derived through two different methods: one uses early stage embryos in excess of clinical need and donated by women undergoing in vitro fertilization; the other method isolates stem cells from aborted fetuses. Stem cells have the ability to divide for an indefinite period in culture and can develop into most of the specialized cells and tissues of the body, such as muscle cells, nerve cells, liver cells, and blood cells. The use of stem cells has far-reaching possibilities including "cell therapies." Stem cells stimulated to develop into specialized cells could be used to treat diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, spinal cord injuries, stroke, burns, heart disease, and diabetes. Using stem cells could reduce the dependence on organ donation and transplantation.

The moral issues raised by stem cell research differ, depending on whether the cells come from aborted fetuses or embryos resulting from in vitro fertilization that are no longer needed for infertility treatment.

Research on Tissue Resulting from Abortion

The ethical acceptability of deriving stem cells from the tissue of aborted fetuses is closely connected to the morality of abortion. Some of those who oppose using stem cells derived from aborted fetuses argue that abortion for any reason is wrong. Those who so believe also fear that the possibility of donating the fetus for stem cell research will encourage women to have more abortions or justify abortions that otherwise could not be justified. They believe that researchers would be complicit in an immoral act. In addition, they may believe that a woman seeking an abortion should not have the right to give consent to the use of the tissue because she has forfeited her maternal trusteeship by aborting the fetus.

The General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) have consistently supported women's right to choose an abortion based on conscience and religious beliefs. We believe that a woman's right to evaluate her life situation and the impact of her pregnancy on her own health and on her obligations to other family members is an essential element of her personhood and her status as a moral being. We view abortion as not only protected under U.S. law, but as morally justifiable in certain circumstances.

We believe that the use of tissue derived from fetuses is morally and ethically acceptable, provided that the procurement of that tissue is subject to appropriate limitations, and we believe that such limitations should be incorporated into regulatory law. Regulation of donations needs to assure that the decision to have an abortion is separated from the decision to donate fetal tissue. The sale or commercialization of fetal tissue should be legally prohibited.

Research with Stem Cells Derived from Embryos

Research with stem cells obtained from human embryos poses moral difficulties that do not exist in the case of fetal tissues. The life of the fetus has already been terminated when the researcher receives tissue from an aborted fetus, while the life of embryonic tissue resulting from infertility treatment must be terminated. The morality of ending the life of embryos rests on how one views the moral status of the embryos. We believe, as do most authorities that have addressed the issue, that human embryos do have the potential of personhood, and as such they deserve respect. That respect must be shown by requiring that the interests or goals to be accomplished by using human embryos be compelling and unreachable by other means. Indications are that human embryonic stem cell research has the potential to lead to lifesaving breakthroughs in major diseases. Currently, this knowledge cannot be obtained from cells derived from other sources such as adult stem cells and cadaveric fetal tissue. Prohibition of the derivation of stem cells from embryos would elevate the showing of respect to human embryos above that of helping persons whose pain and suffering might be alleviated. Embryos resulting from infertility treatment to be used for such research must be limited to those embryos that do not have a chance of growing into personhood because the woman has decided to discontinue further treatments and they are not available for donation to another woman for personal or medical reasons, or because a donor is not available. Again, the sale or commercialization of embryonic tissue should be legally prohibited.

Conclusion

Therefore, the 213th General Assembly (2001) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), affirms the use of fetal tissue and embryonic tissue for vital research. Our respect for life includes respect for the embryo and fetus, and we affirm that decisions about embryos and fetuses need to be made with responsibility. Therefore, we believe that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and other faith groups should educate their members in making these very difficult ethical decisions. With careful regulation, we affirm the use of human stem cell tissue for research that may result in the restoring of health to those suffering from serious illness. We affirm our support for stem cell research, recognizing that this research moves to a new and challenging frontier. We recognize the need for continuing, informed public dialogue and equitable sharing of information of the results of stem cell research. It is only with such public dialogue and information sharing that our diverse society can build a foundation for responsible movement toward this frontier that offers enormous hope and challenge.