Moving Ahead on Stem Cells
Published: January 10, 2007
House Democrats are poised to push through a bill this week that would loosen President Bush’s restrictions on federal support of embryonic stem cell research. The bill will be opposed by legislators beholden to religious conservatives. Many are likely to cite a new study suggesting that broadly useful stem cells can be derived from amniotic fluid without destroying embryos to get them.
The new study, while certainly intriguing, in no way lessens the need to widen the array of embryonic stem cells available for research and ultimately therapy. The Democrats’ proposal is extremely modest — about the least that could be done to accelerate progress in this promising field. It deserves support from veto-proof majorities in both houses.
Under the policy enunciated by Mr. Bush in 2001, federal money can be used to support research on only 20 or so stem cell lines that existed before the policy was set. Many of these cell lines are deteriorating or contaminated. And their number is far too small to allow the full range of research needed to explore the value of stem cells for treating Parkinson’s, diabetes, spinal cord injuries and other serious ailments.
The Democrats’ bill would expand the number of lines by directing the secretary of health and human services to finance research using human embryonic stem cells regardless of when they were derived. The source of these cells would remain highly restricted. No embryonic stem cells could be tailor-made to study specific diseases or therapies. The stem cells would have to be derived only from surplus embryos that were originally created for fertility treatments and would otherwise be discarded....
***
At this point, it is important to explore all approaches: using “adult” stem cells, which can grow into a very limited range of body tissues; the cells found in amniotic fluid, which may yield a broader range of tissues; and the most versatile cells of all, those derived from early human embryos.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/opinion/10wed1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin