Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Legislation and related legal issues

Heidi Brannen

Law 310
Professor Floyd
June 1

Human embryonic stem cell research has been and will continue to be a very controversial issue in society all over the world. Many countries have recognized the importance of this research and its benefits, while others have continued to make such research illegal with no plans to change in the near future. This paper will be discussing the past, current, and hopeful future legislation in regards to embryonic stem cell research and how it could affect the future of medical advancement.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Legislation and related legal issues Research on human embryos and fetuses has been in development for decades with the first well known development being the polio vaccine which stemmed from work on cultures of human fetal kidney cells in the 1950’s. The controversy of such research is not so much in the science of the research itself, but in how the cells are obtained from unborn embryos and fetuses in their earliest stages of development. In the 1970’s, the controversy focused on research involving fetuses in utero, aimed at developing techniques such as amniocentesis and improving the understanding of conditions such as congenital heart disease, as well as on research involving tissue from aborted fetuses of the type that led to the polio vaccine. Federal funding of this research was halted until guidelines and safeguards were established by a blue-ribbon, congressionally mandated commission and later codified into federal law. (Gold, 2004) Since then, federal guidelines have been put in place regulating federal funding of fetal research, fetal tissue transplantation research, in vitro fertilization research, and in 1998, stem cell research. Research on embryonic stem cells has been a legislative nightmare for years because of the argument over when a human life actually begins and whether or not it is both legal and ethical to create and or end a life for the purpose of research. Laws in the U.S. have been made, then changed, then changed again in an effort to satisfy all interested parties without impeding scientific discovery that could change the course of medicine. Because of the wide controversy of this topic and the ongoing legislative battles, the timeline is quite long, so I will narrow it down to the key moments to present date in the U.S.
On August 23, 2000 the National Institutes of Health issued guidelines that allowed federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, supported by the current President, Bill Clinton. One year later, on August 9, 2001, President George W. Bush announced his decision to limit federal funding to only the existing stem cell lines of which there were approximately 64. The lack of federal funding did not stop research from continuing, but that research would have to be privately funded, and guidelines for obtaining the stem cells were still in place through the NIH. On June 25, 2004, New Jersey became the first state to set aside $9.5 million in funds for stem cell research followed by California on November 2, 2004 with a budget of $3 billion to be used over a ten year period. On May 26, 2005, a bill was passed easing the restrictions placed by President Bush despite his promise to veto such legislation. Efforts by the House to expand federal funding of stem cell research fell to the power of President Bush’s vetoes on July19, 2006 and again on June 20, 2007. The President also issued an executive order encouraging scientists to derive new methods of obtaining stem cells without harming human embryos. (Reporting by Maria Godoy, 2007)
With the election of a new President, the future of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research in the U.S. found new hope. On March 9, 2009, President Barack Obama issued an executive order removing the barriers previously imposed by President Bush. The order entitled “Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells” supports the findings of the previous decade in regards to this controversial research. President Obama’s executive order states “Research involving human embryonic stem cells and human non-embryonic stem cell has the potential to lead to better understanding and treatment of many disabling diseases and conditions. Advances over the past decade in this promising scientific field have been encouraging, leading to broad agreement in the scientific community that the research should be supported by Federal Funds.” (Executive Order 13505, 2009)
Countries around the world have adopted three levels of funding for embryonic stem cell research which are categorized as “Permissive”, “Flexible”, and “Restrictive”.

(http://mbbnet.umn.edu/scmap.html)

• "permissive" = various embryonic stem cell derivation techniques including somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), also called research or therapeutic cloning. SCNT is the transfer of a cell nucleus from a somatic or body cell into an egg from which the nucleus has been removed. Countries in this category include Australia, Belgium, China, India, Israel, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, the United Kingdom and others. These countries represent a global population of more than 2.7 billion people.
• "flexible" = derivations from fertility clinic donations only, excluding SCNT, and often under certain restrictions. Countries in this category include Brazil, Canada, France, Iran, South Africa, Spain, The Netherlands, Taiwan, and others. These countries represent a global population of more than 1 billion people.

•
• Restrictive policy or no established policy. Restrictive policies range from outright prohibition of human embryo research to permitting research on imported embryonic stem cell lines only to permitting research on a limited number of previously established stem cell lines. Countries with a restrictive policy include Austria, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Norway, and Poland.
• Map is designed to reflect national policy and whether or not public funds may be used to pursue stem cell research using IVF embryos donated from fertility clinics.
• The black dots show the locations of some of the leading genome sequencing research centers. Most U.S. centers are those that have been involved in the Human Genome Project. The genome sequencing centers are meant to indicate the level of scientific infrastructure and not whether stem cell genomic studies are being conducted at a given center. The dots are linked to center web sites. (http://mbbnet.umn.edu/scmap.html)

The future of embryonic stem cell research legislation will depend on the advancement of the research presently being done, both in the United States and foreign countries. In an effort to ease the political issues stemming from this research, scientists are working on ways of removing cells without harming human embryos. Researchers at Wake Forest University and Harvard University reported that stem cells drawn from amniotic fluid that had been donated by pregnant women hold the same promise as embryonic stem cells. The amniotic fluid is able to be extracted without harming either the mother or the fetus. (Reporting by Maria Godoy, 2007) Discoveries such as this would be invaluable to stem cell research in that it could change medical history without the taking of lives, therefore ending that part of the controversy. When asked my opinion on embryonic stem cell research, I have to reply with reservations. As a mother and decent human being, I value life to its fullest, but as a practical modern thinking person I value the advancement of science and what it can mean to the future of mankind. The legislations on embryonic stem cell research have limitations such as needing the parent’s permission to test on embryos that have been aborted or miscarried, not offering/soliciting financial restitution for the use of said embryos, and not encouraging woman to abort a pregnancy for the sake of research. If I were to miscarry, I would want some good to come from such a painful experience. If I were to abort a child, I would think it might not be as painful (depending on the reason of course). Science cannot continue to evolve without research that may not be pleasant for everyone to support, but we need that research to continue so that we can better understand illnesses and diseases that so many suffer from and hopefully someday can be prevented. I support embryonic stem cell research and similar projects in science because I would like to know that some day in the future the suffering of so many will simply not exist.

Works Cited
Executive Order 13505. (2009, March 9).
Gold, R. B. (2004, October). The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy. Retrieved June 2012, from Guttmacher Institute: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/07/4/gr070404.html http://mbbnet.umn.edu/scmap.html. (n.d.). Retrieved June 2012, from http://mbbnet.umn.edu/scmap.html
National Conference of state legislatures. (2008, January). Retrieved June 2012, from Stem Cell Research: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/embryonic-and-fetal-research-laws.aspx
Reporting by Maria Godoy, J. P. (2007, November). Key Moments in the Stem-Cell Debate. Retrieved June 2012, from NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5252449