 |
|
|
WASHINGTON INSIDER
Spring 2007
|
Richard M. Doerflinger
Deputy Director
Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Washington, D.C.
At this writing, the 110th Congress has begun its first (2007) session with a new
Democratic leadership, and a membership less committed to defending unborn human
life. Even with Republicans in the majority in both the House and Senate,
however, 2006 featured many impasses and few clear victories on fundamental bioethics
issues.
While supporters of human embryo cloning and embryonic stem cell research
still failed to demonstrate the utility or clinical benefit of such ethical abuses, their
poorly grounded claims of future “miracle cures” wielded great influence in the
political sphere, both nationally and in key states. This was illustrated in November
by Missouri voters’ narrow approval of Amendment 2, an initiative promoted by an
extremely well-funded campaign that centered on the (very unlikely) prospect of
“life-saving cures” using embryonic stem cells. The initiative’s actual effect is to
create a state constitutional right for researchers to engage in human cloning for
purposes of stem cell research.
It seems the political drive for biomedical research without moral limits will
continue along this course in 2007, promising miracles while often dismissing or
disregarding the actual evidence arising from such research.
2006 in Congress:
Impasse and Limited Progress
In 2006, Congress’s most visible bioethics debate was on federal funding for
human embryonic stem cell research. Both the Senate and the House approved a bill
to fund research using stem cells from newly destroyed “spare” human embryos
from fertility clinics (H.R. 810, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act). President
Bush rejected the proposal, wielding the first veto of his career, and the House fell
fifty votes short of overriding his veto.
This legislation was considered and approved by the Senate as part of a package
of three bills on July 18, 2006. Approved that day by unanimous 100-to-0 votes were a bill to promote alternative ways to derive very versatile or “pluripotent” stem cells without harming human embryos (S. 2754, Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act), and a bill to prevent researchers from deliberately gestating or “farming” unborn children to obtain their stem cells or other tissues (S. 3504, Fetus Farming Prohibition Act). These two bills, supported by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other pro-life groups, were considered by the House under a “suspension of the rules” that allows no amendments but requires two-thirds support. The House unanimously approved the fetus farming bill, but its vote of 273 to 154 in favor of the “alternative stem cells” bill fell short of the required margin. This was due to a last-minute attack on the bill by House sponsors of the embryonic stem cell funding bill, who evidently feared competition from research avenues that do not require destroying embryos. I observed then that:
This latest attack on other ways to pursue stem-cell research reveals a new and
more intolerant side to the ideology of the embryonic-stem-cell campaign.
Now it is not enough to include embryo destruction in the category of acceptable
biomedical research—one must wed oneself to embryo destruction, forsaking
all other avenues. One must insist that stem-cell research must not
move forward to advance knowledge or treat diseases unless it involves destroying
human life. This is a dark and narrow vision of science that sets it
directly at odds with morality and common sense. In the end, it is as antiscience
as it is anti-life.1
Thus, the only new federal legislation enacted on stem cell research in 2006
(the “fetus farming” prohibition, now Public Law 109-242) was an initiative by the
pro-life movement—just as the only such legislation enacted in 2005, establishing a
nationwide umbilical cord blood stem cell bank (the Stem Cell Therapeutic and
Research Act, now Public Law 109-129), was also strongly supported by the Catholic
bishops and other pro-life groups.
Another modest victory for the morally responsible use of biotechnology came
at the very end of the year, when Congress approved the Office of National Drug
Control Policy Reauthorization Act (H.R. 6344, now Public Law 109-469). This
legislation was approved by both House and Senate without significant dissent, and
was signed into law by President Bush on December 29. Title VII of the legislation,
which gives the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency responsibility for ensuring that U.S. athletes
competing in the Olympic Games do not use “performance- enhancing drugs”
such as steroids, also requires the agency to help prevent use of “performanceenhancing
genetic modifications accomplished through gene-doping.” The agency is
further instructed to “permanently include ‘gene doping’ among any list of prohibited
substances” that it adopts. The law defines “gene doping” as “the nontherapeutic use
of cells, genes, genetic elements, or of the modulation of gene expression, having the
capacity to enhance athletic performance.” This may be the first federal legislation
ever to require that limits be placed on human germ-line genetic engineering.
Senate Hearing on Misrepresentations
in Stem Cell Research
The previous “Washington Insider” noted the controversy over an article published
online by Nature on August 23.2 In the article and related press releases,
Robert Lanza and his colleagues at Advanced Cell Technology in Massachusetts
claimed that they had derived human embryonic stem cell lines, using single cells
obtained from eight-celled embryos without harming them. It soon came to light that
they had misrepresented their study—in fact, they had obtained four to seven cells
from each embryo, destroying the embryos, and then cultured all the cells from each
embryo closely together to mimic the cell-to-cell interactions that promote healthy
growth and differentiation in the intact embryo.3
These facts rebutted early claims that the study would easily lead to the production
of stem cell lines using the single, isolated cells sometimes obtained from
early embryos for preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). In fact, another study
published about the same time, which received far less attention, reported a complete
failure to develop cell lines even when two cells are retrieved from each embryo—
and these researchers concluded that the cells of early human embryos may be
“social” cells that require ongoing interaction with each other to develop normally.4
On September 6, Robert Lanza and his study became the subject of a contentious
hearing held by congressional supporters of embryonic stem cell research. Senator
Arlen Specter (R-PA), chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee for Labor,
Health and Human Services and Education, and Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), ranking
minority member of the subcommittee, heard testimony from Dr. Lanza as well
as his company’s top ethics advisor, Prof. Ronald Green, but “repeatedly interrupted
and scolded Lanza” for damaging the reputation of stem cell researchers. Specter
said Lanza’s misrepresentations had given the political agenda in favor of embryonic
stem cell research “a big black eye,” while Harkin stated more generally that the stem
cell field “has been hyped too much. We need to come back to Earth.” 5 Unfortunately, these charges centered chiefly on Lanza’s most recent study, and did not give
due attention to the ways in which the entire political drive to destroy embryos for
stem cell research has relied on exaggerated and deceptive claims.6 As will be seen,
most members of Congress have yet to learn any lasting lessons on this point.
Opening Battle of 2007
The new Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives wasted no
time in reopening the stem cell research debate. As part of the House’s first “one
hundred hours” of whirlwind legislative activity, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced
that last year’s legislation to expand embryonic stem cell research would be
brought up immediately, without committee hearings or an opportunity for amendments.
The new bill, introduced as H.R. 3, is identical to last year’s H.R. 810 except
that Democrat Diana DeGette (D-CO) took over prime sponsorship from her longtime
ally Mike Castle (R-DE). Total co-sponsors increased to 217 (compared to 200
for last year’s bill).
Unexpectedly, however, a scientific study published a few days before the
House vote received widespread media attention and enlivened the debate. Researchers
at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North Carolina and Children’s
Hospital in Boston announced that they had isolated an easily cultured stem cell in
amniotic fluid with “pluripotent” flexibility and therapeutic potential. Especially significant
was the cells’ apparent ability to produce a wide variety of functional cell
types, without the tendency toward tumor formation that has plagued animal trials
using derivatives from embryonic stem cells.7 Thus, they may have the key advantages
of embryonic stem cells without the disadvantages that have made those cells
too dangerous for human trials.8 In light of the imminent congressional vote, many
news reports highlighted the ethical and political implications of this breakthrough.
The Los Angeles Times, for example, noted, “The finding points to a promising avenue of research that sidesteps the hurdles facing embryonic stem cell research, which has been hampered by moral objections to the destruction of embryos that occurs when the cells are harvested.” 9
Catholic officials welcomed the study. Calling it “a very significant and ethically
admissible advance,” Javier Cardinal Lozano Barragán of the Pontifical Council for
Health Pastoral Care commented, “The Church is not obscurantist and is always
ready to welcome real scientific progress that neither threatens nor manipulates the
sources of life.”10 Speaking for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I emphasized
that this “is one in a line of studies showing very versatile stem cells can be
obtained from a number of different products after live birth—amniotic membrane,
amniotic fluid, cord blood, placenta, even umbilical cord tissue.” 11 It is especially
ironic that the “frozen embryos,” so eagerly sought by researchers as sources of
research material, may not only be more appropriately treated, but may even provide
a better source of stem cells if they are simply allowed to be born alive.
The new amniotic stem cell study and other alternative routes to stem cell
research featured prominently in the House debate. Supporters of H.R. 3 responded
by enlisting scientists to dismiss or belittle the study. The Juvenile Diabetes Research
Foundation, which provided funding for the laboratory that conducted this study,
even persuaded chief author Anthony Atala to write to the bill’s sponsors assuring
them of his support for embryonic stem cell research—and then widely distributed
his letter to members of Congress and posted it on the Web site of the Biotechnology
Industry Organization without his knowledge or permission.12 Coming forward to
declare that amniotic stem cells “may not do as many tricks” as the embryonic
variety was none other than Dr. Robert Lanza, whose disregard for accurate reporting
in this field earned him such opprobrium from the bill’s supporters only four
months before. Another critic of the study was Dr. Lawrence Goldstein, who questioned
whether any cell that does not spontaneously create tumors could really be
“pluripotent.” 13 His bizarre message seemed to be that embryonic stem cells are
uniquely promising for human treatments because they cause tumors.
Three prominent scientists helping H.R. 3’s supporters to dismiss alternative
avenues and promote the legislation—Lanza himself, and Kevin Eggan and George
Daley of Harvard—also believe that for some purposes, stem cells from so-called
“spare” embryos (the subject of H.R. 3) are no substitute for the tailor-made stem
cells that may someday be obtained from cloned human embryos. All three are
pursuing research to make human cloning possible. The easy slide from the agenda
of H.R. 3 to human cloning was dramatized when, as part of a “motion to recommit”
(the only procedural option allowed to those wanting to send the bill back to committee
for changes), opponents sought to add language to H.R. 3 to prevent its grant
money from going to entities that also use stem cells from cloned human embryos.
The amendment was denounced by supporters as a threat to especially promising
research, and defeated 189 to 238.
The increased attention to new advances in non-embryonic stem cells, while
refreshing, seemed to have a limited immediate effect on voting behavior. The House
approved H.R. 3 by a vote of 253 to 174—showing more support for the bill than
last July, when a veto override attempt failed on a vote of 235 to 193, though still
falling twenty-five votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override the
threatened presidential veto. Only eleven changes of votes were attributable to membership
changes from the elections, with the rest due to absentees and to a small
number of returning members who changed their position. Remarkably, four new
Democratic members voted against H.R. 3. It seems the 110th Congress, like the
109th, may see a good deal of gridlock over this issue.
Also reintroduced during the debate on H.R. 3, but not allowed to come up for
a vote, was a new version of the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement
Act discussed above. The sponsors, Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) and
Phil Gingrey (R-GA), said they would work for congressional passage of this bill,
H.R. 322, after President Bush vetoes H.R. 3. At this writing it was also rumored
that the President may issue an executive order to promote federal funding of such
alternative research.
Genetic Nondiscrimination Bill
May See Action
A bioethics measure that has languished in the House for years may well pass in
the 110th Congress. This is the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (109th
Congress, S. 306 and H.R. 1227), designed to prevent discrimination against individuals
and families by employers and health insurance companies based on the
results of genetic testing. The bill was approved unanimously by the Senate in 2005
but not taken up in the House (reportedly because of opposition from businesses
concerned about increased costs). The bill is widely supported by Democratic members
of Congress and may be approved this year.
One very unfortunate and apparently unintentional loophole in the bill has been
that it does not seem to address discrimination against families based on the preimplantation
or prenatal genetic testing of their child. The bill prevents discrimination
against an individual based on the results of genetic testing of the individual or a
“family member” of the individual; but “family member” is defined to include “a child who is born to or placed for adoption with the individual,” apparently excluding the child not yet born.14 This is especially frustrating because even groups supporting “abortion rights,” such as the American Civil Liberties Union, when testifying before Congress, had cited an alleged case of such discrimination based on prenatal
testing among the examples illustrating the need for such federal legislation.15 When
the bill was debated and approved by the Senate in 2005, supporters disclaimed any
intention of excluding such situations and promised that the bill’s scope would be
clarified in a final conference report.16 However, because of the House’s inaction,
that report was never written.
The current dilemma is that a new Congress more likely to take up and address
the issue of genetic discrimination may also be more likely to disregard the status of
the unborn child as a family member—even if that means allowing unjust discrimination
against the parents who want to deliver and raise that child. Those concerned
about the use and misuse of rapidly developing genetic technologies should hope that
common sense and fairness will prevail.
Notes
1 Richard M. Doerflinger, “Anti-Life, Anti-Science: A Castle of Confusion,” National
Review Online, July 19, 2006, http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGE1Zjc4YjljY
Tc2YjI2ZTQzOGQ4YmI1ZGYzZGE3ZWM=.
2 William L. Saunders, Jr., “Washington Insider,” National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 6.4 (Winter 2006): 629–636.
3 I. Klimanskaya et al., “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Derived from Single
Blastomeres,” Nature 444.7118 (November 23, 2006): 481–485, www.nature.com/nature/
journal/v444/n7118/abs/nature05142.html. This corrected print version differs markedly
from the version originally published online August 23 with much fanfare. The changes
are described in an addendum on p. 512, www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7118/full/
nature 05366.html.
4 C. Y. Fong, M. Richards, and A. Bongso, “Unsuccessful Derivation of Human Embryonic
Stem Cell Lines from Pairs of Human Blastomeres,” Reproductive Biomedicine
Online 13.2 (August 2006): 295–300, abstract at http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:16895649.
5 Rick Weiss, “Senators Denounce Scientist’s Stem Cell Claims,” Washington Post,
September 7, 2006, A4, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/06/
AR2006090601749.html?nav=rss_technology.
6 For a brief overview of this problem, see Richard Doerflinger, “The Problem of
Deception in Stem Cell Research,” remarks at the International Congress “Stem Cells:
What Future for Therapy?” Rome, September 15, 2006, http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/
bioethic/RDRome91506speech.pdf. An older but more fully documented account
can be found in Doerflinger, “Human Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell Research after
Seoul: Examining Exploitation, Fraud, and Ethical Problems in Research,” testimony before
the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, House
Committee on Government Reform, March 7, 2006, www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/
bioethic/cloning/test2006a.shtml; reprinted in National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 6.2
(Summer 2006): 339–350.
7 P. De Coppi et al., “Isolation of Amniotic Stem Cell Lines with Potential for
Therapy,” Nature Biotechnology 25.1 (January 2007): 100–106, published online January
7, 2007, www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v25/n1/abs/nbt1274.html.
8 See Rick Weiss, “Scientists See Potential in Amniotic Stem Cells,” The Washington
Post, January 8, 2007, A1 and A5, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/
2007/01/07/AR2007010700674.html.
9 Karen Kaplan, “Stem Cells in Amniotic Fluid Show Promise,” Los Angeles Times,
January 8, 2007, www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-stemcells8jan08,0,1519192,full
.story.
10“Vatican Welcomes New Stem Cell Advance,” Reuters News Service, January 9,
2007, http://today.reuters.com/ news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-01-
09T140843Z_01_L0948679_RTRUKOC_0_US-VATICAN-STEMCELLS.xml&
WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C1-topNews-9.
11 Carl T. Hall, “Amniotic Fluid a Promising Stem Cell Source: Political Resistance
to Using Embryos Drives Research,” San Francisco Chronicle, January 8, 2006, A1,
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/08/ MNG4PNENI31.DTL.
12 See Catherine Clabby, “Stem-cell Pioneer Encourages More Research,” Monterey
County Herald, January 13, 2007, www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/living/
health/16452824.htm.
13 Kaplan, “Stem Cells.”
14 Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, sec. 201(3)(b) (emphasis added).
15 “Indeed, consider further the pregnant woman whose fetus tested positive for cystic
fibrosis and whose managed-care health plan limited coverage for her pregnancy and
future child while offering full coverage should she choose an abortion.” Jeremy Gruber,
ACLU Legal Director, “Testimony Presented to the Senate Labor and Human Resources
Committee,” May 21, 1998, www.workrights.org/issue_genetic/gd_house_testimony.html.
16 Remarks of Senators Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Tom Coburn (R-OK), 109th Cong.
1st sess., Cong. Rec. 151 (February 16, 2005), S1480.
|
|
|
