| |
 |
| April 11th, 2007 |
|
Media Contact(s): Peter Carr (202) 224-9854
Jared Whitley (202) 224-5251 |
[  ] Listen to Radio Clip |
Printable Version |
[  ] Watch Television Clip |
|
HATCH CALLS ON BUSH TO SIGN STEM CELL BILL
|
| |
|
|
| Sen. Hatch speaks after the Senate vote on S. 5 and S. 30. Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) looks on. |
Washington - Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) today urged President Bush to advance the promising field of ethical embryonic stem cell research by allowing federal funding to support scientists using stem cells derived from frozen embryos that are discarded each year.
Hatch's full floor speech in support of S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, and S. 30, the Hope Offered through Principled and Ethical Stem Cell Research Act, follows:
Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of embryonic stem cell research.
First, I plan to vote in favor of both bills that will be considered today, S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 and S. 30, the Hope Offered through Principled and Ethical Stem Cell Research Act. I call upon my colleagues to vote in favor of and pass these bills. And I call upon the President to sign both bills into law.
However, let me make one point perfectly clear – while I will be voting for both S. 5 and S. 30, I believe that S. 5 is clearly preferable to S. 30. S. 5 permits federal funding for embryonic stem cell research; S. 30 does not. I want everyone to understand that the votes we cast today could tomorrow mean the difference between a healthy life and one of misery for many, many Americans.
I want to commend my good friends and colleagues for their hard work on S. 5 – first, Senator Arlen Specter and Senator Tom Harkin, who held over 15 bipartisan hearings on embryonic stem cell research over the last several years. Next, I want to recognize Senators Kennedy, Smith and Feinstein for their courageous leadership and commitment to this important issue. And, in the House of Representatives, Representatives Mike Castle and Diana DeGette must be singled out for their principled leadership on the companion embryonic stem cell research measure, which was approved by a strong bipartisan vote.
Each day, the Congress must address consequential events -- and even momentous threats to our Nation -- but it is not often that we have the opportunity to cast a vote that is filled with as much hope and promise for the future as the embryonic stem cell research bill we are considering today.
It reminds me of our country’s quest for space many years ago, which was no more than a dream when the effort began. Yet, what was only a vision when it was conceived, yielded wonders beyond anything we could have imagined.
The American space program has spawned many important new advances. When I think of space exploration, I ponder the gift of global positioning technology. I consider the weather mapping that we depend upon to warn us of impending natural disasters. I marvel at the revolution of instantaneous worldwide communication.
As a science, embryonic stem cell research today is where the space program was when we first dreamed of it. When I think of embryonic stem cell research, I imagine diabetics without insulin pumps. I dream of patients with Parkinson’s Disease who sprint rather than shuffle. I conceive of patients with spinal cord injury who stand up and walk again.
I think of 16-year-old Tori Schmanski of Orem, Utah, who sustained a severe brain injury. I imagine Tori going back to the snowboarding and dancing that she loved. Tori Schmanski’s parents flew her to China for stem-cell therapy. Her father said something that struck me. He said, “Our hope is that next time we do this, we won’t have to go to China.” America has long been the world leader in ethical biomedical research, and we should not lightly cede this ground.
When I consider the potential of stem cell research, I think of people like 17-year old Travis Ashton of Highland, Utah, whose brain was injured in a car accident. Today, he is struggling to dribble a basketball. I hope tomorrow he will be able not only to dribble a basketball but dunk a couple of baskets as well.
And I think of my great friend, President Ronald Reagan, whose genius and energy were sapped away in what were to have been his golden years by the ravages of Alzheimer’s Disease. I imagine him finishing his days with his characteristic humor and vitality.
Last year when Congress voted on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, Former First Lady Nancy Reagan sent me a letter urging the Senate to support the bill. Let me remind you what it so poignantly said:
Dear Orrin:
Thank you for your continued commitment to helping the millions of Americans who suffer from devastating and disabling diseases. Your support has given so much hope to so many.
It has been nearly a year since the United States House of Representatives first approved the stem cell legislation that would open the research so we could fully unleash its promise. For those who are waiting every day for scientific progress to help their loved ones, the wait for United States Senate action has been very difficult and hard to comprehend.
I understand that the United States Senate is now considering voting on H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, sometime this month. Orrin, I know I can count on friends like you to help make sure this happens. There is just no more time to wait.
Sincerely,
Nancy
As we all know, last year, the Senate did approve this legislation, but President Bush vetoed it. And while I think we all know how this vote will come out today, it remains my fervent hope and prayer that President Bush – a person whom I greatly respect and with whom I share strong belief in the right to life – will sign this bill into law.
I have received many letters from constituents who ask me, “Senator Hatch, how can you support embryonic stem cell research when adult cell research is so promising?” They ask, “Why don’t you realize that cord blood research makes embryonic stem cell research unnecessary?”
My answer is simple. Who among us can know which will yield the greatest breakthroughs? Who among us dares to predetermine the outcome by limiting the possibilities of ethical scientific research at the outset of this new field of research?
The stories I have just related compel me to advocate for all types of ethical stem cell research --- adult, cord blood, amniotic, and embryonic.
Indeed, it must be recognized that in August, 2001, President Bush became the first President to support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The President has my respect and admiration for his decision. At that time, he announced that 78 embryonic stem cell lines would be eligible for Federal support. It was a good start. It was also a decision that recognized discarded embryos can, and should, be used to advance our nation’s scientific inquiry. That is fundamentally still the issue before us today.
The President’s policy has not lived up to its promise. In the past six years, much has changed. What was once thought to be over 70 stem cell lines has dwindled. A number of scientists have told me that in reality the number of usable cell lines has shriveled to merely a dozen or fewer.
Scientists have told me that these lines are not enough to represent the general population anyway—they have been genetically distorted by years of replication. Furthermore, they are contaminated with so-called animal feeder cells and, therefore, can never be approved for use in human therapy.
Existing federal policy has created what I have characterized as handcuffed science. By this I mean that scientists are forced to go to extreme lengths to comply with federal law. When they are able to scrounge up private funding for fresh embryonic stem cell lines, the scientists find their hands bound.
They are afraid of violating federal law by mixing research between the limited, contaminated, federally-sanctioned stem cells and cells with the new cell lines lawfully developed with non-federal funds. No equipment purchased with NIH funds touches the new, lawful cell lines and the result is that equipment purchased with federal money lays underused while limited precious money is used to purchase duplicate equipment and supplies.
Dr. Linda Kelley is an Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of Utah. Dr. Kelley told me that the limited number of currently federally-sanctioned cell lines is so unstable that, in her words, “You are lucky if you can recover 10 percent of the cells they send you.” She said the cells have been reused for so long that they have degraded and no longer represent the comprehensive human population.
I do not want Utah’s scientists moving to California or America’s scientists moving overseas so they can do their research.
Just as we are a nation that would never want to allow a situation to exist where American citizens must go abroad for best medical treat treatment, we should neither allow nor accept an atmosphere where our best doctors and scientists must go abroad to develop and provide the best medicine.
I do not want U.S. scientists walking away from embryonic stem cell research because there are too many impediments to pursuing it in our country for our citizens.
Dr. Marie Cseta is a cell biologist from Emory University and is one of the many scientists who firmly believe that embryonic stem cells hold unusual promise. She is unable to send her NIH-funded, post doctoral fellows to qualified laboratories to learn new procedures because those laboratories work with the new cell lines. She told me that the restrictions that current federal policy places upon her and her colleagues are, in her words “... so odious that many scientists just do not try.”
I want scientists to try.
I think we will see after today’s vote that most Senators want scientists to try.
I am sure my friends, neighbors and constituents in Utah want our best scientists to try.
In forming my opinions and views on this topic, I met with many leading experts in the field of science, ethics, law and, yes, religion. I met with a number of Nobel Laureates including Dr. Harold Varmus, former Director of the National Institutes of Health; Dr. Thomas Cech of the Howard Hughes Institute of Medical Research and Dr. Paul Berg of Stanford University.
I met with other leading experts including: Dr. Curt Civin and Dr. John Gearhart both of Johns Hopkins University; Dr. Irv Weissman of Stanford University; and the University of Utah’s own Dr. Mario Capecchi.
Let me tell my colleagues that we have some great scientists in the state of Utah. In fact, Dr. Capecchi, a leading research professor at the University of Utah, is widely recognized as one of the true pioneers of embryonic stem cell research. He has been working on embryonic stem cell research throughout his 40-year career. He has been the recipient of the prestigious Lasker Award which is considered the most prestigious American award in the biomedical sciences. It is often the case that Lasker Award winners go on to receive Nobel prizes.
When I was home in Utah last week, I spent a lot of time talking to Dr. Capecchi. I asked him if he could provide me with he believed are the top reasons why our government should fund embryonic stem cell research. He shared the following with me:
1. Potential source of cures. Embryonic stem cell research provides the potential to cure or ameliorate some of the most devastating and costly diseases faced by our nation including diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and Alzheimer’s disease.
2. Embryonic stem cells grow quickly and are versatile. Two inherent properties of embryonic stem cells, not shared with adult stem cells, makes them especially attractive cells for cell transplantation-based therapies: i) rapid cell division and ii) versatility.
Rapid cell division is critical if we want to use any stem cells for transplantation therapy, as we must quickly expand a limited number of cells to the large mass required for therapeutic effect. Embryonic stem cells are almost unique in their capacity for rapid growth without loss of developmental function.
The versatility of embryonic stem cells is truly remarkable. In the mouse, embryonic stem cells have been unequivocally demonstrated to be pluripotent, capable of generating every cell type present in the adult body. Studies in cell culture indicate that human embryonic stem cells also possess this remarkable pluripotency.
3. Adult stem cells grow slowly. In contrast, adult stem cells divide slowly and normally require a very specialized and undefined cellular environment (called a niche) for their survival and growth. For example, removal of adult intestinal stem cells from their biological niche leads to their automatic, programmed cell death. Blood stem cells, obtained from the bone marrow, are among the few adult stem cells currently in clinical use, but they cannot yet be expanded in culture without losing their developmental function, and hence their limited therapeutic utility.
4. Adult stem cells are very restricted in what cell types they can produce. Whereas embryonic stem cells are extremely versatile in their capacity to generate different cell types, adult stem cells appear to range in versatility from quite restricted (for example, blood stem cells that can generate multiple types of blood cells, but nothing else) to completely restricted (for example, muscle stem cells that generate only muscle cells).
5. Many important organs do not have adult stem cells. Many tissues such as liver, pancreas, and blood vessels do not appear to have a corresponding adult stem cell population. Therapies of diseases involving these tissues would therefore not be readily approachable by adult stem cell-based therapy, but could be approached using embryonic stem cell-based therapies.
6. The usefulness of existing embryonic stem cell lines is extremely limited. The approved set of human embryonic stem cell lines, authorized nearly six years ago for Federally-funded research, is woefully inadequate. Some of them apparently do not exist at all, others are embroiled in extensive proprietary agreements and all of them though suitable for some research purposes, will never be suitable, due to problems with contamination, for therapeutic purposes.
More importantly, ongoing research—funded by private foundations and industry, or performed abroad—has brought about improvements in how laboratories isolate and grow embryonic stem cells. Mouse embryonic stem cells were first characterized over 25 years ago, yet the cell lines that researchers use today are far superior to the ones available 5 or 10 years ago. With the hope of further improvements, we continue to isolate new mouse embryonic stem cell lines.
So long as the Federal funding ban remains in place, the majority of American researchers cannot make similar progress with human embryonic stem cells, nor exploit the advances made by others. With the limits currently in place, American human embryonic stem cell researchers are in the unfortunate and unique position of being frozen in time, trapped by the technical limitations of mid-2001, while other disciplines continue to advance. This makes no sense from a medical or scientific perspective.
Although today’s debate focuses on the use of spare embryos to develop embryonic stem cell lines, the next two points that Dr. Capecchi makes center on a different method of producing embryonic stem cell lines.
For the last three Congresses, Senator Feinstein and I have introduced legislation that addresses this form of embryonic stem cell research. Although this issue is not squarely before us today, I hope that the Majority Leader will allow us to take up this important matter sometime this Congress.
7. Somatic cell nuclear transfer as a research tool. A limitation of IVF embryo-derived stem cells is their potential of rejection by the patient because of immunological incompatibility. A potential solution is the generation of “customized” embryonic stem cells by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) which has been demonstrated in proof of concept experiments in mice.
While, at present, nuclear transfer using human eggs to generate customized embryonic stem cells for therapy would be too complex and too controversial to be applicable for routine transplantation medicine, it represents an important tool for investigating the mechanism of converting a somatic cell such as skin cell into an embryonic stem cell.
We need to learn the “reprogramming rules” the egg uses to convert the adult nucleus into an embryonic state following nuclear transplantation. One goal of research in this field is to convert a somatic cell to a pluripotent embryonic stem-cell-like state in culture without SCNT.
We need to use eggs temporarily to learn how to reprogram the adult nucleus without the need for human eggs. Progress toward this goal can only be assured if Federal funding would be able to support research in this field in the best academic institutions of our country.
8. Embryonic stem cells to study human disease. Because SCNT allows production of patient-specific embryonic stem cells, this approach would allow establishing research tools for the investigation of complex human diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, ALS, or diabetes in cell culture. An embryonic stem cell line derived from such patients would carry in its genome all genetic alterations that caused the disease. Thus, differentiating these patient-specific embryonic stem cells in culture to a cell type that is defective in the patients may provide crucial insights into the pathology of the disease and may provide a critical platform to identify drugs that help prevent, ameliorate, or cure the disease.
9. Lack of government commitment means lack of future researchers. The brightest young researchers in our country are currently not engaging in human embryonic stem research because they are aware of its uncertain future, the low level of commitment by our government to its support and of the cumbersome restrictions faced by scientists participating in this research. We are losing the scientists that will carry this critical research into the future.
10. Health and economic implications. The health and economic implications of human stem cell research are enormous and other countries have recognized this potential. They are heavily investing in embryonic stem cell research. Our country is in grave danger of falling behind in one of the most promising fields of biomedical research.
Dr. Capecchi gives very compelling reasons for funding embryonic stem cell research. I believe that all ethically responsible avenues of stem cell research should be pursued and that is the Congress’ obligation to the American public to see that they all are pursued. But let me caution that no one should imagine that one bill is a substitute for the other.
S. 30, introduced by Senator Norm Coleman, directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research on pluripotent stem cells that do not damage a human embryo. It also specifies work on naturally dead embryos. But, the concept of alive-but-naturally-dead embryos is based upon limited research that has not yet been duplicated widely.
It is promising research, but it is no more than that at this stage. In fact, some scientists are worried that these arrested embryos are defective and would, therefore, produce defective stem cells. And it is by no means certain that an arrested embryo can be differentiated from one that could develop further.
In short, this idea may not pan out.
Recently, there was another flurry of activity around the possibility that certain cells in amniotic fluid behave similarly to stem cells. But even Dr. Anthony Atala who characterized these cells has said that it is a mistake to assume that they are a substitute for embryonic stem cells.
The vote that counts in the minds of our best and brightest scientists – and should count for my colleagues in the Senate and the American public -- is your vote for S.5, the Specter-Harkin bill that has already passed the House by a broad bipartisan vote. Our leading scientists, including more than 40 Nobel Laureates, tell us at this time there is no known scientific substitute for embryonic stem cells.
Yet, I understand that the vote I ask you to cast is ethically troubling for some of my colleagues.
I have a long, proud and strong record as a right-to-life Senator. I stand against abortion on demand, and I think that Roe v. Wade should never have been decided the way it was.
As a member and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I worked toward a Constitutional amendment banning abortion. In the 108th Congress, I was at the President’s side when he signed the bill banning the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion. I was Chairman of the House-Senate Conference Committee that finalized the bill.
So why does a pro-life Senator support embryonic stem cell research? Because I do not consider a frozen embryo to be a human life until is implanted in a woman’s uterus. S. 5 allocates federal research funding to embryonic stem cells derived from frozen embryos that are to be discarded. In fact, thousands of such embryos are routinely discarded each year.
I should explain why frozen embryos exist and why they are discarded.
As part of the fertility treatment process, multiple embryos are created and only one or a few of those that are created are ultimately used. The rest can be stored for years in liquid nitrogen. About 11,000 embryos per year are discarded by their donors and could be used for research.
I see ethics as being on the side of creating human life through fertility treatments. I see it as trying to cure human misery through ethical stem cell research as is provided through S. 5.
When I first took this position in 2001, it was over the objection of some of my constituents in Utah. Utah is a very conservative state. Since that time, however, the majority of Utahns and the majority of Americans have come to support the use of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research conducted under ethical guidelines.
This year, as in past years, I have had a steady stream of Utahns with chronic diseases visiting my office urging me to continue to push for stem cell research. One young man who has been afflicted with diabetes since youth now has a son with the disease. He urged me to continue with this fight so that maybe his son might be spared the ravages of the disease. A woman disabled with multiple sclerosis earnestly told me to persist. A constituent with Parkinson’s disease told me to do whatever it takes. They all want hope.
NIH support is the bedrock of scientific research in the United States and really around the world. And without NIH support, embryonic stem cell research will never reach its full potential.
While constrained by his position in the Administration about what he can and cannot say about the legislation before the Senate, in testimony before the Congress, NIH Director Dr. Elias Zerhouni recently made it abundantly clear that -- based on consideration of science alone --embryonic stem cell research presents great opportunities for scientific advancement. And Dr. Zerhouni is not alone.
As I emphasized, one reason is that the limited and continually shrinking number of federally-sanctioned contaminated cell lines are so tired that they no longer adequately represent the genetic code of the larger human family.
A second is that the logistics of investigation are burdensome and impractical because of the need to separate funding sources for research with the limited, deficient federally-sanctioned stem cell lines and the newer cell lines lawfully developed within federal support.
A third reason is that scientists cannot now use federal funds for research on any embryonic stem cell line that they could implant in humans—these federally-sanctioned lines are contaminated with animal cells.
A fourth reason is the need to be able to bring the fruits of basic research to the patient. It is one thing to find several hundred thousand dollars of private money to complete an early stage research project on stem cell lines in the laboratory. However, when it comes time for clinical testing, the costs of research are in the millions of dollars, not the hundreds of thousands of dollars per experiment. Typically, this kind of private money is not available unless it is from industry. Clinical research with stem cells will hit the wall without NIH funding when that time comes.
The private sector will not want to invest millions of dollars into stem cell lines that we already know will never yield ethical human treatments. Nor should Congress and the public allow the status quo to continue.
If we unlock the shackles on our scientists, I believe we can materially shorten the time between basic and applied research – the time between the test tube and the patient’s bedside. Let me give you just a few examples of what has been accomplished since the Senate last debated this issue.
In last October’s Nature, biotechnology investigators reported that they could convert human embryonic stem cells into cells capable of synthesizing insulin, the missing hormone in diabetics. This work was conducted on privately-funded stem cell lines.
At the University of California, Los Angeles researchers demonstrated that they could coax embryonic stem cells into becoming T-cells of the immune system, the missing cell line in AIDS patients.
And in my own state of Utah, Dr. Raymond D. Lund, a professor of the Moran Eye Center at the University of Utah, reported that human embryonic stem cells injected into the eyes of blind rats improved their vision. This important work was conducted with private funding.
An Israeli team partially funded by the Israel Science Foundation reported engineering a small piece of heart tissue derived from human embryonic stem cells that contracted rhythmically, carrying promise for future cardiac replacement therapies.
Last month, Dr. Dachun Wang and Dr. Rick A. Wetsel at the University of Texas reported a procedure that differentiates human embryonic stem cells into the lung cells that are missing from many lung diseases. The work was funded with a grant from a private donor.
Finally in a recent Nature Medicine Journal, human embryonic stem cells delayed the onset of the mouse equivalent of a degenerative brain disease by 70 percent. The approach described in the article holds exciting potential for treating dreadful diseases such as ALS and Alzheimer’s Disease.
As you can see, there is a lot of promising work being done in the field of embryonic stem cell research. Unfortunately, due to the limitations and restrictions placed on the few cell lines eligible for federal research assistance, much of most promising work is being done outside the normal channel of the NIH research network.
Yet with all this progress, is science progressing as fast as it should? I recently asked this question of an eminent neuroscientist who directs the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke, Dr. Story Landis.
At the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee’s hearing entitled “Can Congress Help Fulfill the Promise of Stem Cell Research,” committee members heard from scientists, from a young patient who suffered from diabetes, and from Dr. Landis. I asked Dr. Landis if NIH funds were made available for research on all ethically obtained embryos from in vitro fertilization, would the probability of finding cures for human diseases increase?
Her response was as follows: “Absolutely it would increase. There is no question about it. We would have a real opportunity. I can give you one specific example. Huntington’s disease is an inherited disease. It caused a particular kind of nerve cell in the brain to die…If we had embryonic stem cells derived from discarded embryos that were not implanted, we would be able to make extraordinary inroads into therapeutics for that disease.”
Much is weighing in the balance on today’s vote. I ask my colleagues to consider carefully the positions they take today. In the interests of all those who suffer from debilitating diseases and hope for deliverance, I urge my colleagues to vote for S. 5.
Let me close by making a point I made to President Bush back in 2001:
"In the opening days of your term in office, scientists have completed the task of sequencing the human genome. While this accomplishment – the work of many in the public and private sectors – is of historical significance, it is only the end of the beginning in a new era of our understanding of the biological sciences. Over your next eight years in office, you have an unprecedented opportunity to provide the personal leadership required to see to it that your Administration will be remembered by future historians as the beginning of the end for such deadly and debilitating diseases as cancer, Alzheimer’s and diabetes."
That is what S. 5 is all about – providing a potential new avenue of research that may lead to treatments and cures for many diseases that afflict many families across our nation and the world.
Mr. President, while I have no objections to S. 30, let us not delude ourselves into thinking it is the best solution to this. Again, while I will be voting for both S. 5 and S. 30, I believe that S. 5 is clearly preferable to S. 30. S. 5 permits federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, S. 30 does not. S. 5 is the bill that will clearly make a significant difference in the future of medical research.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of S. 5.
|
| |
| ### |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
