Letter to President Bush regarding embryonic stem cells

[Wise Young]

Public release date: 23-Jul-2001
Contact: Joseph Blumberg
blumberg@ur.rutgers.edu
732-932-7084 x652
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey

A letter to President Bush
Sunday, July 15, 2001

The White House
Washington D.C.
President George W. Bush

Dear President Bush,

I am a spinal cord injury researcher and have been deeply concerned by the delays in the decision to allow the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to fund human embryonic stem cell research. I believe, as do the vast majority of my fellow neuroscientists, that human embryonic stem cell research is key to many important therapies that will restore function to people with spinal cord injury and other neurological disorders. I also believe that a decision to allow NIH to fund human embryonic research will markedly reduce the currently unbridled use of embryos and fetuses by private companies.

Please accept my sincere compliments and applause for your thoughtful attempts to find reasonable compromises to this difficult situation. Several weeks ago, I understood that you were considering a compromise where NIH would be allowed to fund human embryonic stem cell research that utilizes only already-established cell lines and to have a sunset clause on the rule such that the embryonic stem cell research can be stopped when adult stem cells become available for research and therapy.

This compromise may satisfy some who are opposed to human embryonic stem cell research but, in my opinion, will be unacceptable to many patient advocacy groups for the following reasons. First, it is not clear that we currently have enough and appropriate embryonic stem cell lines. There are probably thousands of different kinds of stem cells and the existing ones may not be suitable for all diseases. Second, a sunset clause, particularly if it is a short period of 3-5 years, would be too restrictive because there are no guarantees that human adult stem cell work will have progressed far enough in such a short time to substitute for embryonic stem cells.

Therefore, I would like to suggest the following alternative compromise which I believe would be acceptable to many of my colleagues and people that I know with spinal cord injury:

1. NIH be allowed to fund human embryonic stem cell research, but only with existing or NIH- and FDA-certified stem cells. If any researcher wants to utilize new embryonic stem cell lines created after the rule change, they must prove to an NIH committee that they cannot obtain the cells from existing cell lines or that existing cell lines do not possess the characteristics for treating particular disorder. Of course, stem cell use in humans must be approved by the FDA.

2. The rule be allowed to lapse in 10 years (a more reasonable period than 3-5 years) but only if NIH funding for adult stem cell research is boosted substantially to ensure that adult stem cells will be available for research and therapy in 10 years. There is strong support in Congress for an increase in funding of adult human stem cell research.

The above compromise will minimize the current unnecessary and uncontrolled destruction of human embryos for research and therapy. There are currently no laws that forbid isolation of stem cells from embryos or fetuses by private companies. Many companies are rushing to take advantage of the governmental indecision on this matter. At least three companies have announced that they are obtaining sperm and eggs from human volunteers to produce embryos for the purpose of creating stem cells. Undoubtedly, other companies are doing the same but are not announcing their work. If an NIH-and FDA- certified source of embryonic stem cells were available and became the standard, I believe that it will be a strong deterrent to the currently unmonitored and widespread use of human embryos and fetuses to produce stem cells. Time is of the essence in this matter.

Thank you very much for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Wise Young, Ph.D., M.D.

###

Wise Young, Ph.D., M.D., Professor II and Director W. M. Keck Center for Collaborative Neuroscience Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Piscataway, New Jersey

[James Kelly]

Dr. Young:

I thought your "point one" was excellent...especially since I submitted it many weeks ago on Cando.com. But to give the devil his due I believe you made some mention at the time of the concept's merit. Regarding "point two" and your overall letter, you certainly aren't shy about reaching for the whole piece of cake! ESC funding for ten years AND substancial increases in autologous funding! You certainly aren't confident of either of these treatments quickly leading to cures, are you? And what about non-stem cell funding? I'm starting to think that with you at the helm of the "Good Ship SCI" those of us swabbing the deck in wheelchairs better get our minds right for an extended cruise...like maybe forever!

James Kelly

[bill j.]

You need to get a life, Jim. Your comments are snide, rude and inappropriate. You create conspiracy theories if someone is for ESC research. You create conspiracy theories if someone is against ESC research. No matter what position Dr. Young or anyone takes, you will fit in a conspiracy theory somewhere or find something to criticize, as only you can seem to do. You remind me of a spoiled brat - you want your cure now. If it isn't delivered to you in two weeks, all of society and the entire business world are plotting against you. Why don't you do something constructive to occupy your time instead of continuously hounding Dr. Young? One thing you have proven to me on these forums is that you are not nearly as intelligent as you think you are. Not even close.

Bill

[This message was edited by bill j. on August 07, 2001 at 08:26 AM.]

[Wise Young]

Do you really think that we should stop embryonic stem cell research after five years? Wise.

[DA]

well i have to admit, when dr young said 10 years i got a chill down my spine. using esc cell should be mute in 10 years. well before 10 years will a procedure to turn adult stem cells into esc. this was a subject on the forum june 2000 so its not new. i remember the article about cows being younger than their age, and this was over a year ago. the problem i have with this 10 year is the chance to foot drag. their are good cops and bad, good politicans and bad, good people and bad. why do so many of you assume all researchers are good. if a researcher get 10 million per year for 5 years to cure X. the researcher cure X in 1 year. since cure X is like sci, the ghetto disibiity, researcher know he will not win the nobel prize. there researcher will hold off his cure for 5 years to get 40 million. because he produced a cure, nobody will ask where that money was spent. i think esc money should be renewed yearly or bi-yearly. this way we will have accountability. this way researchers cant say "i got 10 years to screw around, hmmmmmmmm, maybe i'll build a new building or buy the lab new coffee machine as well as high price lawyer to deflect any critism.

[Wise Young]

You have really posed a really interesting hypothesis here. Perhaps having a sunset clause on the law will really move research along. I like it. But, remember, we are talking about NIH research here. NIH funds grants in 3-5 year periods. If the rule is sunsetted in 3-5 years, that means there will only be one or two rounds of grants and then all grants will stop. If we are talking about 10 years, we can have five years in which the grants can be awarded.

Wise.

[James Kelly]

Dr. Young:

I definitely think that ESC federal funding should be approved with limitations. My goal is that curative research should be advanced ASAP. Is that clear? At this point, however, ESCs are still in the basic research stage, whereas adult stem cells have already been successfully used to reverse a degenerative central nervous condition (Parkinson's Disease) in a HUMAN. Is it therefore hard to understand why I would wish to insure that NIH-support of ESC research doesn't lead to the stunting of autologous research or the advancement of non-stem-cell-based neuroprotective or regenerative science? If you can suggest an ironclad means of insuring that such would not be the case, then ESC federal funding should be approved. If not, then I'll back the Catholics and Born Agains and take my chances with curative treatments currently in development.

James Kelly

[Wise Young]

To my knowledge, there has only been one unpublished report of one patient in whom adult stem cells had been used to treat Parkinson's disease. This was reported by Cedar Sinai in a press release and I am frankly skeptical of the claims of improvements that have been made in that case. The FDA has stopped that trial, presumably for safety reasons.

In contrast, there have been hundreds of patients who have been treated with fetal transplants and many of whom have benefited from the therapy. If you read the paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine (you should), you will find that the study by Kurt Freed showed that the patients showed statistically significant benefit from the implants and that the media misrepresented the results of that study.

At the present, there is no limitation on NIH funding of human stem cell research and in fact there is legislative pending in Congress to add $30 million to the NIH budget to fund adult stem cell research. The NIH is currently funding probably hundreds of millions of grants on adult stem cells.

In contrast, NIH has not and is not funding any human embyronic stem cell research. President Bush is now considering continuing this ban of NIH funding for human embryonic stem cells research. This is in spite over 70% of Americans indicating that they would favor NIH funding of such research on embryonic stem cells obtained from fertilized eggs that will be destroyed anyway.

The House of Representatives has just passed a law criminalizing human cloning of all types. This will completely close the door to develop cloned stem cells for therapy of spinal cord injury or a myriad of other diseases, not only by NIH-funded laboratories but also by any company or corporations.

In the lead posting of this topic, I proposed a compromise to President Bush that would provide the assurance that both embryonic and adult stem cell research would be adequately funded so that their potential can be realized. You may not agreed that this is "ironclad" and you are entitled to your opinion but what would you propose instead?

Wise.

[Sorry, I gave the wrong hospital name and corrected it]

[This message was edited by Wise Young on August 07, 2001 at 04:08 PM.]

[gpbullock]

It's clear to me, judging by the last election that Bush doesn't care what the majority of the population cares about. He got into office without receiving the popular vote(I'm sure everyone has their own argument regarding this point so I don't care to get into as it's been debated to death)and I'm sure he feels he can slight the American people until the cows come home as long as he receives the support of the congress and their respective lobbyists, and the electoral college which is obviously biased, in the next four years. If this truly was a democracy, the 70% of Americans voices in support of Stem cell research would be acknowledged by action instead of dragging feet, thinking about their(GOP) Bush's strategy for re-election in 3.5yrs. This goes for all of our elected representatives. Bush could easily loose the next election if he doesn't approve this research. Either way, he is writing his own future on his ranch right now.