Joe Pitts, December 15, 2004

"If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to get up out of that wheelchair and walk again," Senator John Edwards exclaimed at a political rally in October, echoing his running mate’s comments that President Bush had "banned" stem cell research.

To ban something means to outlaw it completely. President Bush did not ban stem cell research. In fact in 2003, the National Institutes of Health spent $521 million on stem cell research alone.

Senator Edwards was mischaracterizing the President’s policy that limited federal funding for stem cell research that destroys human embryos. President Bush was the first to fund research on stem cells derived from embryos that had previously been destroyed. No funds go to the actual destruction of embryos.

Stem cells can be derived from various kinds of adult tissue or from human embryos. Taking stem cells from a human embryo is impossible without killing it. However, scientists claim that embryonic stem cells have endless potential to cure disease because they can be grown into any type of cell in the body during normal embryonic development. Taken out of the embryo, though, and placed in a pitri dish, scientists can direct these cells to grow into different tissues, as one scientist claimed, "willy nilly". But to date there have been no diseases treated with these stem cells.

Despite this embarrassing clinical underachievement, some want taxpayers to foot the bill to fund this failed research. It’s important to understand what we would be getting into.

Aside from the destruction of embryos, embryonic stem cells present two significant problems: tumors and rejection.

If these cells hold the potential to grow into any type of cell, they can also form malignant growths in the body. In the laboratory, dozens of lines are genetically unstable and cannot be used for therapy for this very reason. This is substantial risk.

Secondly, patients’ bodies frequently reject these foreign cells when they are injected. But a patient will not reject his own cells. So researchers have devised a process in which they take the nucleus of a cell from the patient (often a skin cell), inject it into a woman’s egg, produce a human embryo, and extract stem cells from this embryo that are genetically identical to the patient.

In scientific parlance, this is known as "nuclear transfer." I prefer the more common term, human cloning, because it involves creating a genetic replica of a person in embryonic form. The only difference here is that you kill it in its earliest stages of development.

In stark contrast to the failures of embryonic stem cells, the use of adult stem cells has already resulted in more than 120 treatments for various diseases and ailments. Plus, there are many sources of these cells: umbilical cord blood, fat tissue, nasal cavities, the spleen, and teeth just to name a few. Extracting them does not harm anyone. These cells do not present the serious ethical concerns and medical dangers of embryo-destructive research. In other words, you don’t need to hide behind scientific jargon when you use adult stem cells.

Duke University Medical Center researchers have been able to take stem cells from fat tissue and reprogram them to grow bone, cartilage, fat and nerve cells. In Australia , researchers have identified stem cells in baby teeth and are encouraging individuals to hold onto these teeth, as they may prove to be a source of stem cells for life-saving treatments. Bone marrow stem cells, when exposed to damaged liver tissue, can quickly convert into healthy liver cells and help repair the damaged organ, according to research done at Johns Hopkins. And bone marrow stem cells implanted in the heart have shown positive results in repairing damage done to the heart during a heart attack.

A team of Korean researchers told the public last month that they translated adult stem cells from umbilical cord blood into the spinal cord of a 37-year-old female patient who hadn’t been able to even stand up in 19 years. An accident in 1985 had left her paralyzed. Today, she is learning to walk.

Seoul National University professor Kang Kyung-sun, a co-leader of the Korean team that helped their patient walk, says that embryonic stem cells can adapt into any type of cell in the body. That means they can also develop into tumors. This often happens in laboratory experiments, he says.

Overall, stem cells derived by destroying embryos present more problems than promise at this point. Not so with other kinds of stem cells. Professor Kang continued that cord blood stem cells are "developed enough not to cause such troubles" while retaining remarkable abilities to adapt into different cells.

Breakthroughs made with ethically obtained stem cells are occurring on a regular basis. But these advances have not broken through in the mainstream media. Morning news shows do not feature patients walking because of adult stem cells. They lead instead with politicians and scientists who have a financial interest in advancing their agenda with outrageous claims and erroneous charges. They discuss the "ban" President Bush has placed on research.

The point is that embryo-destructive research has shown no promise in curing diseases in humans despite the best efforts of many to suggest otherwise. However, researchers are free to perform this destructive research as much as they wish, just without taxpayer money.

In contrast, stem cells taken from living sources -- adults, umbilical cords, teeth, etc. -- are a safe and effective way to develop stem cell research at this point. In fact, this research has proven so successful that proponents of embryonic stem cell research cite clinical research done with adult stem cells when arguing their case for more embryo research to treat diabetes, for example. Research on this disease conducted on mice has shown that stem cells taken from bone marrow or the spleen can completely reverse diabetes.

The President is not blocking science. Rather he is attempting to direct funding towards the research that has shown promise and does not present serious moral problems by destroying human life at its earliest stage. I support his efforts at funding research that will save lives, that already is helping people "get up out of that wheelchair and walk again." Federal funding should follow clinical success.

Congressman Joe Pitts, a Republican, represents Pennsylvania's 16th Congressional District, which includes Lancaster County and parts of Chester County and Berks County.