Technology

First of all, the purpose of the stem cell bill is to expand the use of embryonic stem cell research and NIH-funded research in the United States. There's a great demand for cures and therapies for serious ailments, particularly Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and diabetes. The public is demanding every opportunity for scientists to find these cures and therapies.

A secondary reason in addition to the human side is the medical economic side. Many of these illnesses cause Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance companies to pay out billions and billions of dollars.

These are some of the justifications. Read more...

It is clear that a majority of the House, just like a majority of Americans, back potentially life-saving stem cell research. Most importantly, this legislation would establish an ethical construct to oversee stem cell research by ensuring embryos were created solely for the purpose of fertility treatment, were in excess of clinical need and were going to be discarded anyways.  We also included in the legislation strong protections to ensure no money could exchange hands. The decision to discard the embryo, which will be used for the research, will already have been made and only then can a couple donate an embryo for research.  Prior to that decision, all other options are open to them, including embryo adoption.

Through a vigorous debate, we also brought truth to the false claims put forth by our opponents and we continued to educate all of America about how this research may help those one in three Americans suffering from diseases like cancer, juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's and Alzheimers.

I just hope that this legislation does not end up being vetoed -- yet again -- by President Bush.  My goal has always been to advance scientific research -- in all areas of stem cell science -- in this country.  We never know where the cures and treatments are going to come from and one cell type is not a replacement for another.

We owe it to the millions of Americans suffering throughout the country.  It is my hope that in the end we will be able to craft a final piece of legislation that is acceptable to advancing science and at the same time addresses the concerns of the Bush Administration. I am not sure that can happen, but I am committed to seeing if it can.

Tomorrow, I will oppose legislation requiring taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research because the destruction of human life is unnecessary to advance stem cell research and treat our most horrible diseases. There are four kinds of stem cell research: I support (1) amniotic fluid, (2) umbilical cord, and (3) adult stem cell research, but I oppose (4) federal taxpayer funded research on embryonic stem cells, which requires the destruction of early human life.

Despite 25 years of research in mouse embryonic stem cells and 7 years in the human variety, embryonic stem cells have yet to yield any successful clinical trials in humans.  Adult stem cells, however, have treated patients suffering from 72 different diseases in published clinical applications.  Researchers have also achieved similar results with stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood, treating more than 70 different types of diseases. Read more...

Sunday’s announcement that scientists had discovered amniotic-fluid stem (AFS) cells that have many similar properties to embryonic stem cells is wonderful news, but does not obviate the need for the federal government to adequately support and fund embryonic stem (ES) cell research. The scientists who published the paper on the new stem cells agreed that these new cells will not replace embryonic stem cells.

The AFS cells, which have been described as a “somewhere in between Read more...

Often I hear the false claims that FRC is against stem cell research.  In truth, FRC is a strong advocate for ethical stem cell research.  This ethical form of research has produced actual treatments and cures, as opposed to embryonic stem cell (ESC) research.  Regrettably many politicians, including the new Democratic leadership, use ESC as a political football, caring little about actual cures.  Research from the Wake Forest University School of Medicine now threatens to take some of the steam away from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) attempts to increase taxpayer funding for life-destroying embryonic stem cell research.  Doctors, using cells either from amniotic fluid or directly from the placenta once the women had given birth have demonstrated once again that amniotic fluid-derived stem (AFS) cells can be extracted and turned into many tissue types including nerve, blood vessels, liver cells, cartilage, bone and cardiac muscle. Read more...

Liberal Republicans and Democrats in Congress are rushing to overturn President Bush’s ban on expanded use of human embryos in stem cell research this week. Under consideration this week is H.R. 3, a bill that is designed to institutionalize the killing of unborn humans for their stem cells.

Why are liberals so determined to expand on the killing of the unborn? They already vigorously defend the so-called “right

Yesterday’s news that scientists have isolated stem cells in the amniotic fluid of pregnant women that can grow into a variety of tissue and be used to treat diseases should sound a loud warning to the new Democratic majority. On Thursday, the Democrats will bring up H.R. 3, legislation to fund embryonic stem cell research that destroys human embryos. What won’t they bring up for debate? Any alternatives – including amniotic fluid research. In fact, the Democrats have made it clear that on Thursday, the only stem cell research we’ll be funding is the kind that kills embryos. So what about adult stem cells, cord blood stem cells, and these amniotic stem cells? The Democrats simply aren’t interested.

H.R. 3 (DeGette-Castle) is morally unacceptable. Here in America, we don’t take organs from death row prisoners because they are ‘going to die anyway.’ Neither should we steal the life of a fertilization clinic embryo just because there’s a chance it won’t be used to impregnate a woman. Before we use taxpayer dollars for the destruction of human life, we should take a lesson from yesterday’s scientific findings: we don’t have to sacrifice life in order to research ways to save it. Read more...

I am proud to still be at the forefront of this issue as we continue to push the crucial issue of embryonic stem cell research. This effort has never been solely about my bill; it has been on behalf of the research and the work for a cure for the tens of millions of patients suffering worldwide from diseases such as Juvenile Diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer and AIDS. For that reason, I hope that we may make the bill more palatable to President Bush, either in the Senate or in Conference so that it stands more of a chance of being signed and so that the research can move forward.

As the debate continues on this bill on Thursday, it is important to remember the facts. The decision to discard the embryo which will be used for the research will already have been made and only then can a couple donate an embryo for research. All other options are open to them, including embryo adoption. Additionally, embryonic stem cells are pluripotent and can turn into any cell in the body which is much more useful for research than adult stem cells and currently, embryonic stem cells are the only area of stem cell research restricted at the federal level. It is time to update the federal policy to enable scientists in the United States to participate in the race for cures and treatments.

On December 28, 2006, the Food and Drug Administration released its draft risk assessment on the safety of meat and milk from cloned animals, which endorses cloning while neglecting to adequately address the welfare of these animals and their surrogate mothers. The public has 90 days to submit comments to the agency before it formally approves or prohibits the sale of these products. Read more...

Every poll taken on the issue indicates that American consumers do not want cloned animals and their offspring in the food supply, and for good reason. The potential benefits of food animal cloning are marginal at best and far outweighed by the risks and concerns about the use of the technology.

Cloning, a process for producing multiple, nearly identical, copies of adult animals, cannot create desired characteristics like high milk production. Its primary use would be to accelerate the rate at which such characteristics are incorporated into dairy or beef herds. This is not much of a benefit to American agriculture, which is already hyper-productive and plagued with surpluses.

And the downsides to cloning are many. Read more...