U.S. federal stem cell legislation

The issue of stem cell research, particularly embryonic stem cell research, became a high-profile political issue in the U.S. during the first year of President George W. Bush's term in office (2001). On August 9, 2001, Bush enacted a ban on federal spending for the purpose of deriving new embryonic stem cells from fertilized embryos. He argued that performing research on embryos is destroying human life, and should therefore be avoided. Both the 109th and 110th Congresses passed bills overturning the ban, but both were vetoed by Bush. During the 109th Congress, both houses also passed and Bush signed a bill banning the creation of human fetuses with the sole purpose of destroying them and harvesting their body parts. The Senate also passed a bill encouraging research into the creation of stem cell lines without destroying human embryos.

While both Democrats and Republicans have advocated for expanded federal funding for stem cell research, the debate over embryonic stem cells tends to be more polarized. Democrats are generally supportive of expanding embryonic research, while Republicans tend to favor expanding only other types of stem cell research that do not involve the harming of human embryos.

110th Congress
Legislation governing stem cells in the 110th Congress (2007-2008) generally fell into two categories: bills seeking to expand the funding of embryonic stem cell research and bills seeking to expand stem cell research without using human embryonic stem cells.

Efforts to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research
The principle vehicle for expanding the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research in 2007 was the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 (H.R.3).



House
On January 11, 2007, the Democratic-controlled House passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 (H.R.3), sponsored by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), lifting the restriction on new federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research implemented by President Bush in 2001. Under this bill, the Secretary of Health and Human Services would be directed to conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells. Under the bill, the cells eligible for use would be required to come from excess human embryos, smaller than the head of a pin, donated from in-vitro fertilization clinics. The cells would have had to have been created for the purpose of fertility treatment. Once a woman was successfully fertilized, the “extra” cells could be donated for research. In particular, the bill required that prior to the consideration of donating the embryo and through consultation with individuals seeking fertility treatment, it must have been determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.

To avoid cell farming and other efforts to profit from providing stem cells, the bill would require that the individuals seeking fertility treatment donate the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation.

The final vote was 253-174, thirty-seven votes short of a veto-proof majority. As expected, President Bush promised to veto the bill if it reached his desk. The White House issued a statement saying, "The administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 3, which would use federal taxpayer dollars to support and encourage the destruction of human life for research...If H.R. 3 were presented to the president, he would veto the bill."



Before the bill was passed, Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) made a motion to recommit the bill to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which failed by a vote of 238-189.



Senate
Although it fell four votes short of the supermajority needed to override a presidential veto, the Senate passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 (S.5) on April 11, 2007. The Senate bill differed slightly from that passed by the House in January 2007, for it contained new language regarding the possibility of obtaining embryonic stem cells without killing embryos. The legislation was passed in the face of a veto threat from President Bush.



The final vote was 63-34. The bill had been sponsored by Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).



As expected, most Democrats supported the legislation, while most Republicans opposed it. There were, however, the following exceptions:

Democrats who opposed the bill

All Democrats but Sens. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) opposed the bill.

Republicans who supported the bill

Republicans voted against the bill, 32-17. The Republicans who voted for the bill were:
 * Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)
 * Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah)
 * Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.)
 * Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.)
 * Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)
 * Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.)
 * Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
 * Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas)
 * Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.)
 * Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.)
 * Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)
 * Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
 * Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.)
 * Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine)
 * Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.)
 * Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)
 * Sen. John Warner (R-Va.)

House considers Senate version
On June 7, 2007, the House passed the stem cell legislation passed by the Senate in April 2007, 247-176. This vote was necessary because the House bill which passed in January 2007 was slightly different from that later approved by the Senate. Specifically, the Senate added language promoting federally funded research into methods of stem cell research that do not involve the destruction of human embryos. The legislation was passed in the face of a veto threat from President Bush.

If approved, the bill would replace a law created in 2006 that only allowed for federal support of research using similar cells extracted from the umbilical cord after birth, but prohibited federal spending for research involving stem cells.



Bush administration veto and executive order
On June 20, 2007, President Bush issued an executive order encouraging government agencies to support promising research that might craft useful stem cells without destroying human embryos. Later that day, Bush vetoed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. It was the third veto of his presidency, and the second veto of embryonic stem cell-related legislation. In defense of the veto, Bush said, "If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers for the first time in our history to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos. I made it clear to Congress and to the American people that I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line." An override attempt was expected to be scheduled soon after by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), but such a move was not be expected to garner enough votes to reverse the president's veto.

Following the veto, Bush was criticized by both Democratic and Republican members of Congress. Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.), a cosponsor of the bill, stated "I consider this to be an overwhelming error... I consider this to be flat-out wrong because of the significance of what can be done with this research." Sen. Hillary Clinton, a supporter of the bill, stated "This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science, politics before the needs of our families -- just one more example of how out of touch with reality he and his party have become."

Future legislative action anticipated
Following the veto, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) commented, "This will be an election issue in 2008 not just in the House, not just in the Senate, but in the presidential election. We ... intend to continue bringing this up until we have a pro-stem cell president and a pro-stem cell Congress."

In response to Bush's veto of the bill, supporters laid out plans to keep the issue of embryonic stem cell research in the forefront. On June 21, 2007, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) indicated he would support a provision in the FY2008 Labor and Health and Human Services (HHS) bill that would effectively move the date of Bush's August 2001 ban on public funding for embryonic stem cell research up 6 years. This would allow taxpayer dollars to be spent on research on human embryonic stem cell lines derived prior to June 15, 2007. The legislation also would add ethical standards to be used for selecting embryos to be studied. It was also expected that Democratic congressional leaders would bring back the original stem cell bill, forcing another veto.

Efforts to expand stem cell research without harming human embryos
Many opponents of embryonic stem cell research instead favored legislation which would expand stem cell research without harming human embryos. Measures achieving this end were considered in the 110th Congress.

Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapy Enhancement Act of 2007
On January 4, 2007, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) introduced the Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapy Enhancement Act of 2007 (S.51). The bill would strive to :


 * Intensify research that may result in improved understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse health conditions.
 * Promote the derivation of pluripotent stem cell lines without the creation of human embryos for research purposes and discarding, destroying, or knowingly harming a human embryo.

The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.



Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapy Enhancement Act of 2007
A similar bill, the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act of 2007 (H.R.322), was introduced in the House by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) on January 9, 2007. It was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. As of March 1, it had collected 32 cosponsors.



HOPE Act
On January 23, 2007, Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) introduced the HOPE Act (S.363), which aimed to provide $5 billion over 10 years for stem cell research that does not involve "crossing the ethical line of using taxpayer dollars for the destruction of human embryos." Rather, the funds would be devoted to research on cells which were already "naturally dead." "Naturally dead" was defined as "having naturally and irreversibly lost the capacity for integrated cellular division, growth, and differentiation that is characteristic of an organism, even if some cells of the former organism may be alive in a disorganized state." The bill did not address how the embryo may have died, but was explicit in assuring that it could not have died as a result of being created for the purpose of stem cell harvesting or a procedure for harvesting the amniotic or placental stem cells.



The Secretary of Health and Human Services would be directed to conduct and support research under those parameters. The research would aim to develop techniques for isolating, deriving, producing or testing stem cells that may result in improved understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse health conditions.

The president for the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical, Sean Tipton, said, "It's not clear that this bill would allow the NIH (National Institutes of Health) to do anything it can't already do."

On April 11, 2007, the Senate passed the HOPE Act, 70-28.



Human Cloning Prohibition Act
 The Human Cloning Prohibition Act (H.R. 2560) was introduced on June 5, 2007. According to the bill's primary sponsor, Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), the bill was introduced because the subject of human cloning had come up during the debates over stem cell research. As described by DeGette, the bill would have made it "illegal to use cloning technology to initiate a pregnancy and therefore create a cloned human being." Opponents argued that the bill still allowed the cloning of embryos and thus did not ban human cloning entirely.

On June 6, 2007 Rep. DeGette moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, a motion that required a two-thirds majority for passage. The bill lost, having failed to attain a majority of votes.



Debate
The debate over stem cell research generally surrounds embryonic research, which involves the destruction of human embryos.

Opposition
The following arguments have been made in opposition to funding embryonic stem cell research:
 * Do No Harm, an organization opposed to research which destroys human embryos, has argued that performing research on embryonic stem cells is effectively destroying life, and should therefore be avoided.
 * Do No Harm has also argued that while embryonic stem cell potential remains theoretical, huge successes are being acheived using cord blood stem cells, which pose no ethical dilemmas or medical dangers to the patient. Among the most stunning advancements in adult stem cell therapy, the group has noted, are treatments for Parkinson's disease, juvenile diabetes, and spinal cord injuries. A list of these treatments can be found at the group's site. (here)
 * At a 2005 event sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank opposed to embryonic research, Kelly Hollowell, a molecular and cellular pharmacologist and patent attorney, said that after 20 years of research, there was not a single approved treatment or human trial using embryonic stem cells. Their tendency to produce tumors and malignant carcinomas, cause transplant rejection, and form the wrong kinds of cells, she said, were just a few of the hurdles that embryonic stem cell researchers had been unable to overcome.
 * At the Heritage event, Hollowell argued that women's health and human rights advocates worldwide were concerned that the necessity of harvesting a woman's eggs for further embryonic research could place that woman at risks associated with superovulation or high-dose hormone therapies such as cancer, infertility, memory loss, stroke, seizure, and death.
 * At the Heritage event, Hollowell argued that the process of harvesting embryonic stem cells is extremely inefficient and is dependent on millions of women harvesting their eggs. She said that treating the 17 million diabetes patients alone in the United States would require 850 million to 1.7 billion human eggs or more. To acheive this, she continued, 85 to 170 million women would have to each donate 10 eggs, with 50 to 100 eggs per patient costing $100,000 to $200,000.
 * At the Heritage event, Hollowell said that while embryonic stem cell research was legal, private investors were backing away from funding it, leaving researchers to seek federal government funding.
 * At the Heritage event, Philip H. Coelho, CEO and Chairman of the Board of Thermogenesis Corp, argued that cord blood stem cell therapy had shown a survival rate of 70 percent among high-risk adults. Clinical trials in children with immunodeficiency diseases, he continued, had shown an 80 percent survival rate.
 * The Bioethics Defense Fund, a law and policy organization which seeks to address "human rights violations involved in...embryo research" (among other things), has argued that embryonic research brings about increased possibilities for future commercial exploitation of women (poor women, in particular) to collect their eggs.

Support
The following arguments have been made in support of embryonic stem cell research, as well as federal funding of it:
 * Many scientists, such as Dr. Diane Krause of Yale University, have argued that adult stem cells lack the versatility of embryonic cells, making them less likely to lead to breakthrough medical discoveries.
 * Dr. Mary Hendrix of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology has argued that the research is too important to be left to private researchers, noting that researchers are required to share data when their work is federally funded.
 * Many, including the 2004 General Conference of the United Methodist Church, have argued that destroying human embryos for research that would otherwise be discarded is ethically acceptable given the potential the stem cells hold.

External resources

 * "Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research," Committee on Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research, National Research Council, April 26, 2005. [The pdf link to read (free) the 142-page report is located on left-hand side of page.]
 * "How Embryonic Stem Cell Lines are Made," Dolan DNA Learning Center, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
 * Cell Therapy News website.
 * California Research and Cures Foundation website.
 * "Stem Cell Information" and "Stem Cell Basics," National Institutes of Health website.
 * George W. Bush, "Remarks by the President on Stem Cell Research" and "Stem Cell Fact Sheet," The Bush Ranch, Crawford, Texas, August 9, 2001.
 * "Stem Cells and the Future of Regenerative Medicine," The National Academies Press, 2002. [The pdf and html links to read (free) the 112-page summary is located on left-hand side of page.]
 * "Stem Cell Research - Report," House of Lords, Parliament, February 2002.
 * "Monitoring Stem Cell Research," President's Council on Bioethics, January 2004. Full document available in pdf and html formats.
 * "Stem Cell Research," Congressional Research Service Report, Updated August 13, 2004.
 * Press Release: "Guidelines Released for Embryonic Stem Cell Research," The National Academies Press, April 26, 2005.
 * American Association for Advancement of Science website: "Stem Cell Research & Applications."
 * Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research (CAMR) at stemcellfunding.org website.
 * European Consortium for Stem Cell Research website.
 * Institute for Stem Cell Research (UK) website.
 * International Society for Stem Cell Research website.
 * Stem Cell Research Foundation website.
 * Stem Cell Research News website.
 * Stem Cells (Canada): "The Ethics of Stem Cell Research" website.
 * Do No Harm: The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics at Stem Cell Research.org.
 * University of California, San Francisco website: Stem Cell Research.
 * "The Stem Cell Debate," Time.com, 2001.
 * "The stem cell debate," CNN, accessed May 10, 2005.
 * "Stem Cell Research," PBS Online NewsHour, accessed May 10, 2005.
 * "Stem Cell Research," Washington Post.
 * "Stem Cell Research," The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, accessed May 10, 2005.
 * "Stem-cell Research and the Catholic Church," American Catholic, accessed May 10, 2005.
 * |/bss/d110query.html: Library of Congress page on S.363
 * Compare where public figures stand on stem cell research at whereIstand.com
 * Thomas page on Bartlett bill, 110th Congress
 * Thomas page on Isakson bill, 110th Congress
 * Thomas Page on stem cell research bill, 110th Congress

External articles

 * Jane Perrone, "Stem cell research. With George W Bush allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research in the US, we examine this rapidly advancing field of science," Guardian/UK, August 10, 2001.
 * Scott S. Greenberger, "Way cleared for stem cell research bill. House, Senate leaders agree on oversight," Boston Globe, April 26, 2005.
 * "Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research," Center for American Progress, April 27, 2005: "American Progress Senior Fellow, Jonathan D. Moreno, co-authored the National Academy guidelines released Tuesday, April 26, aimed at all U.S. researchers who perform experiments with human embryonic stem cells."
 * George M. Lamb, "Guidelines proposed for stem-cell research. The plan would set up local review boards and restrict research that introduces human cells into animals," Christian Science Monitor, April 27, 2005.
 * David Espo, "Poll: GOP Voters OK Stem Cell Research," AP, May 10, 2005.
 * Judy Skatssoon, "Funding cuts hit stem cell research," ABC News (Australia), May 10, 2005.
 * John Aloysius Farrell, "Rove: Bush to veto DeGette bill," Denver Post, July 10, 2006: "Bush will likely cast the first veto of his presidency if the Senate, as expected, passes legislation to expand federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, White House aide Karl Rove said today" ... "legislation, co-sponsored by Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Denver, and Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del."
 * Judd Legum, "Expert Cited By Embryonic Stem Cell Opponents Grossly Distorts Research," Think Progress, July 15, 2006.
 * William Roberts, "Democrats' Stem-Cell Measure Passes, Isn't Veto-Proof," Bloomberg News, January 11, 2007.
 * Brady Averill, "Coleman offers $5 billion variation on stem cell studies," Star Tribune, January 23, 2007.
 * Jeffrey Young “Senate passes stem cell research bill” The Hill, April 11, 2007.