We will deal with that later...First, is to stop the murders of PBA this next year, so we can watch the NAGS scream instead of babies., then we will work on embryonic stem cell testing.
frist.senate.gov
Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Statement
Wednesday, September 5, 2001
Floor/Committee Statement Of Senator Bill Frist, M.D.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Gregg, thank you for calling today’s hearing to examine more closely the important issue of embryonic stem cell research.
On July 18, I announced my support of federal funding of both embryonic and adult stem cell research. As we all know by now, embryonic stem cell research in particular holds great potential for advancing treatments for diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, leukemia, spinal cord injuries and a number of other diseases and conditions.
Yet, we must be careful not to oversell the promise of this research to the American people and recognize that the field of embryonic stem cell research is young and untested. The first human embryonic stem cell lines were isolated by Dr. James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin just three short years ago. So, while the research provides great hope for millions of Americans, at this point the benefits of the research have not yet been realized; they are still mere possibilities.
This fact was underscored again just yesterday when it was reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that researchers at the University of Wisconsin had guided stem cells into blood cells. While several press reports noted that this exciting discovery might – eventually – reduce the cyclical shortage of blood for transfusions and help fight specific diseases, University of Wisconsin hematologist Dan Kaufman sounded a cautious and responsible note: Research involving human subjects that could lead to actual treatments is years away and there remain, “serious concerns about safety and efficacy” that must be addressed before testing in people even becomes possible.”
Moreover, there are millions of Americans who have deeply held moral or religious concerns about research using stem cells derived from embryos.
For the first time in history, we may be able to profoundly affect the course of human life and disease by manipulating and altering the basic building blocks of life itself. This research, therefore, not only creates possibilities to produce powerful cures, but also carries great potential for unintended outcomes – even harm. Because we have barely begun to understand its capacities, I also believe that we must approach this pioneering research with the awe and the respect it deserves.
As attention has focused on this research in recent months, much has been learned about the potential of both adult and embryonic stem cells. As I said earlier, just yesterday it was reported that scientists had successfully transformed embryonic stem cells into blood cells. Because of the President’s focus on this issue, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has learned that there are more than 60 embryonic stem cell lines worldwide – far more than previously thought. But all of this has made clear the absolute paucity of our overall knowledge about this science, and it has made clear that there is yet far to go.
Therefore, it is important that we move forward with this research, but that we do so with caution and restraint – remembering that it is untried, untested, and unproven. We must proceed within the context of a fully transparent, carefully regulated framework that ensures respect for the potential of this research and for the moral significance of the human embryo.
These were the considerations underlying the ten principles I set forth earlier this year. And that is why I fully support President Bush’s decision to move forward with federal funding for embryonic stem cell research on existing stem cell lines.
Many people have asked me how the President's August 9, position differs from the policy I outlined on July 18. The answer is quite simple: there is very little difference.
One matter on which there is a difference is on the question of whether to consider the possibility of research involving embryonic stem cells that have not yet been derived from blastocysts. The scientists at NIH have informed the President that more than 60 cell lines exist and that this number is sufficient to provide ample opportunity to research the potential of embryonic stem cells.
When I outlined my ten principles in support of embryonic stem cell research a month earlier, most scientists believed that fewer than half that number of cell lines existed. After consultation with experts, I felt that the number of known cell lines were not adequate to meet the nation's research needs.
Therefore, I proposed a set of rigid procedures, including a comprehensive set of ethical and moral guidelines, for research involving embryonic stem cells. I also announced a process by which scientists and other experts would make recommendations on whether additional cell lines were needed.
Beyond this issue, the differences between the President's and my position are minimal. Because of President Bush’s carefully-balanced policy, NIH and NIH-funded scientists around the world will, for the first time, have access to embryonic stem cell lines that hold the potential to broaden our understanding of many diseases, illnesses and injuries.
The President listened carefully and consulted broadly with a wide range of experts – scientists, bioethicists, religious leaders – in arriving at his policy decision. These issues are difficult because they involve basic issues of life and death and the intersection of science and religion. But I believe the President has put forward a balanced approach that will allow stem cell research to move forward quickly – but also to move forward carefully.
I applaud the President for directing NIH to create a stem cell registry where researchers around the world, as well as the general public, can access information about cell lines available for embryonic stem cell research and how this research is progressing. I am also pleased that the President will name a bioethics advisory commission to monitor and advise him about the moral and ethical considerations that may be raised by scientific breakthroughs.
In closing, let me make clear that I believe that we should support the implementation of the President’s carefully crafted policy. As this moves forward, it will be important that we continuously reevaluate the progress and needs of this research. Given how little we know about this uncharted area of scientific inquiry, an ongoing public discussion among the scientific community, policymakers, ethicists and religious leaders, and the American people similar to what I have previously suggested will be critical to the ultimate success of our biomedical research efforts.
We will have to wait several years to know whether embryonic stem cell research may yield real therapies. In the meantime, we must move forward expeditiously in implementing the President’s policy and continue to examine its progress closely over the coming months and years. |
