thus far, and no farther

Senator Frist's qualified support of a bill, already passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, but by a margin less than that required to override a promised presidential veto, that would allow federal funding, "within a system of comprehensive ethical oversight," of research involving the derivation of embryonic stem cells through the destruction of embryos at the blastocyst state (which the Senator refers to in his remarks as "nascent ["coming into existence; emerging"] human life," does not mean that this Princeton and Harvard Medical School-educated heart-and-lung transport surgeon supports that type of "embryonic stem cell research" which relies on "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT) to generate embryonic stem cells containing the genetic code of specific patients with diseases or conditions said by proponents of this type of research to be treatable, or curable, through the use of these "customized" embryonic stem cells, customized so as not to elicit their rejection when given to their intended recipients, genetic materials from whose cells would have been used to "customize" the stem cells in the first place.

a more extreme step, not taken

Research of this type would be authorized by S. 876, the "Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2005." S. 876 would legally protect, but not fund, the somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) type of embryonic stem cell research.

Senator Frist has not signed on in support of this bill, nor did he mention it in his July 29, 2005, floor speech.

meanwhile, in South Korea

This process, confusingly referred to as "therapeutic cloning" (as opposed to "reproductive cloning"), has already been used by a team led by veterinarian Dr. Hwang Woo-Suk at Seoul National University in South Korea to create "11 lines of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) derived from donated eggs and the somatic (adult) cells of 11 patients with serious medical conditions," at a reported cost of $200,000 and the devoted work (and, allegedly, donated human oocytes) of his team. (Dr. Hwang announced yesterday that his team had cloned an Afghan dog.)

meanwhile, in California

Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is explicitly sanctioned and funded to the tune of $3 billion in bond money (to be repaid with at least $6 billion in taxpayer funding) by California's Proposition 71, which was passed by voters in that state on November 4, 2004, by a 59% to 41% vote.

According to Section 5 of Article XXXV of the California Constitution, added to it by the passage of Proposition 71:

"There is hereby established a right to conduct stem cell research which includes research involving adult stem cells, cord blood stem cells, pluripotent stem cells, and/or progenitor cells. Pluripotent stem cells are cells that are capable of self-renewal, and have broad potential to differentiate into multiple adult cell types. Pluripotent stem cells may be derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer [bolding added] or from surplus products of in vitro fertilization treatments when such products are donated under appropriate informed consent procedures. Progenitor cells are multipotent or precursor cells that are partially differentiated but retain the ability to divide and give rise to differentiated cells."

routes around rejection

Embryonic stem cells created through SCNT theoretically have the advantage that, if they are derived from de-nucleated human eggs re-filled with the DNA of the intended patient and micro-shocked into reproducing ("life") they are less likely to be rejected by the immune system of the DNA-donating patients who receive them, which should recognize them as non-foreign cells.

As a leading medical practitioner, Senator Frist surely knows this, but he says, in his July 29th remarks, that he'd prefer that the problem of rejection be overcome a different way:

"For example, an adult stem cell could be “reprogrammed” back to an earlier embryonic stage. This, in particular, may prove to be the best way, both scientifically and ethically, to overcome rejection and other barriers to effective stem cell therapies."

some ethical issues still remain to be resolved

Even within the context of Senator Frist's extremely-subtle linguistic and ethical maneuvering, other issues remain. In his July 29th speech, the Majority Leader said:

"So let me make it crystal clear: I strongly support newer, alternative means of deriving, creating, and isolating pluripotent stem cells -- whether they are true embryonic stem cells or stem cells that have all of the unique properties of embryonic stem cells.

"With more federal support and emphasis, these newer methods, though still preliminary today, may offer huge scientific and clinical pay-offs. And just as important, they may bridge moral and ethical differences among people who now hold very different views on stem cell research because they totally avoid destruction of any human embryos.

"These alternative methods of potentially deriving pluripotent cells include:

1. Extraction from embryos that are no longer living;
2. Non-lethal and non-harmful extraction from embryos;
3. Extraction from artificially created organisms that are not embryos, but embryo-like;
4. Reprogramming adult cells to a pluripotent state through fusion with embryonic cell lines."

The President's Council on Bioethics

These four methods of threading the bioethical needle are derived directly from a "white paper" entitled Alternative Sources of Pluripotent Stem Cells,", published in May, 2005, by The President's Council on Bioethics," the Chairman of which, Leon R. Kass, was featured in a May 25, 2005, Etopia Media Medical News Network article entitled "Dr. Leon Kass, Chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, discusses current issues in cloning and stem cell research".

an alternative from Stanford's Department of Human Biology

Among these "alternative" methods discussed in the white paper from the President's Council on Bioethics is one proposed by Stanford Human Biology Professor William Hurlbut called "Altered Nuclear Transfer," or ANT. In an April 20, 2005, article in The Stanford Daily, entitled Hurlbut pitches an ethical solution to stem-cell debate," reporter Joaquín Hernández writes:

"Human Biology Prof. William Hurlbut says he may have found a way to crack the moral and ethical dilemmas of stem-cell research with a controversial technique known as Altered Nuclear Transfer, or ANT.

"This method, which allows for the obtaining of stem cells without destroying normal human embryos, is drawing criticism from other researchers, who argue that the method will not solve the moral issues at hand.

"In an address to the President’s Council on Bioethics in December, Hurlbut outlined ANT in three steps. First, scientists extract a cell nucleus from a cell; then they silence a specific gene, called the CDX2 gene, by not allowing its expression, in the removed nucleus; and finally they insert the genetically-altered nucleus into a developing egg cell. This process results in a fusion process that eventually produces hundreds of stem cells, which can then be used for research.

"According to Hurlbut, ANT sidesteps the moral issue of destroying human embryos to obtain stem cells because the process only involves destroying mutant embryos that cannot develop into human embryos because their genes have been altered."

"It deserves to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect."

Senator Frist's characterization of otherwise-to-be-discarded, in vitro fertilization (IVF)-generated human embryos (but not created-by-SCNT ones) as "nascent life," which, as a "human embryo has moral significance and moral worth. It deserves to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect," does not directly address the issue of whether breaking it open and extracting the "inner cell mass" (which, when placed in a glass vessel, becomes "embryonic stem cells") is compatible with the "utmost dignity and respect" with which he says "it deserves to be treated."

"Westward the course of embryonic stem cell research employing somatic cell nuclear transfer"

If Senator Frist's deviation from the course preferred by President Bush as regards embryonic stem cell research paves the way for Senate passage of H.R. 810, the "Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005," and even a successful override of the President's threatened veto, but not the passage of S. 876, the "Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2005," then the State of California, with its newly-added Article XXXV, Section 5, and the promise of $3 billion in funding for SCNT, will be the last best hope for seriously-funded U.S.-based participation in the kind of "customized" embryonic stem cell research already well-underway in South Korea.

some people and groups have chosen to "stand in the doorway [and] block up the hall" on embryonic stem cell research in California

However, standing in the way of this scenario are lawsuits being brought by the California Family Bioethics Council and the People's Advocate.

dueling provisions of the California Constitution

Article XXV, Section 5, of the California Constitution may have "established a right to conduct stem cell research which includes research involving adult stem cells, cord blood stem cells, pluripotent stem cells, and/or progenitor cells….Pluripotent stem cells may be derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer [bolding added]," but, these litigants point out, Article XVI, Section 3, of that same document provides that:

"No money shall ever be appropriated or drawn from the State Treasury for the purpose or benefit of any corporation, association, asylum, hospital, or any other institution not under the exclusive management and control of the State as a state institution."

These two cases, one brought solely on these grounds and the other on this and other grounds, have effectively prevented the sale of the first $300,000,000 in Proposition 71 embryonic stem cell research bonds.

A motion to consolidate these two cases, brought by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, attorney for the Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee (ICOC) created and empowered to raise and spend $3 billion/$6 billion in taxpayer funds in support of embryonic stem cell research in California, was granted in a "tentative ruling" in Alameda Superior Court yesterday, August 3, 2005.

If that judgment is made permanent during a court hearing today, a "case management conference" to develop a plan for the consideration of the consolidated case on its merits is scheduled to take place, according to that tentative ruling, on August 25, 2005.

not everyone believes that "Life is very short, and there's no time For fussing and fighting"

Despite the hopes of ICOC Chair Robert Klein II, principal author of Proposition 71, to use a "bridge financing approach" to start raising money and funding embryonic stem cell research by September, against the wishes of People's Advocate and its attorney, Life Legal Defense Foundation executive director Dana Cody, who called Mr. Klein "a religious bigot" for saying of her client:

"Their arguments are religiously-based, and while we recognize and respect people from other religions, really, the people of California voted, really, 59% to 41%, for this, and the religious opposition is really marshalling now constitutional arguments as a front for their opposition,"

there's no guarantee that the SCNT/embryonic stem cell research community in California will soon come into any more money than they've had since August, 2001, from President Bush, who, upon hearing the news from South Korea that Dr. Hwang and his team had successfully generated customized-for-sick-and-injured-patients embryonic stem cells through the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer, a technique now enshrined in the California Constitution but, as of this writing, still unfunded, said:

back where we started, again

"I'm very concerned about cloning. I worry about a world in which cloning would be acceptable."

 

Get in the swing with additional Etopia Media News Network articles and interviews and Google Alerts

To access additional, recent articles from the Etopia Media News Networks web site, as crawled and cataloged on the Google News web site, click here.

To sign up for Google Alerts whenever a new Etopia Media News Networks article appears on Google News, click here.

Join the "Etopia Media Live!" mailing list (unless you're already on another Etopia Media mailing list)

Just send an empty e-mail to etopiamedialive-subscribe@yahoogroups.com