JUL 08, ‘99 00:02 (ET) To: Dr Harold Varmus PAGE 1 of
BF/O7/1999 19:64 15889949366 WASHINGTON FAX PAGE 61

WASHINGTON FAX”

An infarmation and oommuntaation sarvioa...

  
 
  
  

July 8, 199

POLITICAL MANEUVERING INTENSIFIES ARO STEM CELL RESEARCH SSUE

a“

a

The political battle over human embryon?t tem ce earch is
expected to intensify this month, with the National tnstitutes of
Health (NIH) set to propose guidelines for grantees who want to work
with stem cells and a federal ethics panel expected to release a
report endorsing federal funding for stem cell experiments.

with these events likely to accelerate the debate, groups on both are
sides stepping up their efforts to influence decision makers on
Capitol Hill.

Last week, Sen. Sam Brownback, R-KS, held a press conference to
denounce NIH’s decision to fund experiments with stem cells derived
from human embryos, arguing that a federal law that forbids NIH from
supporting work with the embryos themselves applies to their
byproducts as well. Brownback presented a “position paper’ denouncing
Stem Cell research that was endorsed by a varied group of signatories
including ethicists, clergy, academics and former government
officials.

On the other side of the issue, a coalition of patient advocacy
groups recently organized to lobby for stem cell research is holding
a briefing session today for congressional staff to extol the
therapeutic potential of stem cell experiments. The Patients’
Coalition for Urgent Research, or CURe, is trying to convince
lawmakers that public funding is justified because stem cells--
primitive cells capable of becoming almost any tissue in the human
body--could spark revolutionary treatments for people who suffer from
diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, heart disease and a host of other
debilitating afflictions.

The main battleground is expected to be the FY 2000 appropriations
bill for NIH, which for the past few years has included a legislative
rider forbidding the agency from supporting research in which
“embryos are destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of
injury or death.” However, neither side has revealed a strategy for
achieving their aims.

At his press conference last week, Brownback stuck with the now
standard script of congressional opponents of stem cell research,
which involves attacking the NIH decision support stem cell
experiments as a violation of the law as its now written.

“The research being proposed by NIH on human embryonic stem cells is
immoral, illegal and unnecessary,” Brownback said in a prepared
statement. “Today, there is seme confusion over the simple language
of the (embryo research) ban. This language is clear. The law is
clear.”
JUL 08, ‘939 00:02 (ET) To: Dr Harold Varmus PAGE 2 Of
a7/67/19939 19:84 15889349366 WASHINGTON FAX PAGE 82
Page 2 of 3 (WSFAX 7/8/99) Stem cells (Cont’d)

The position paper proffered by Brownback asserts that “Congress and
the courts should ensure that the law is properly interpreted and
enforced to ban federal funding for research which harms, destroys or
16 dependent upon the destruction of human embryos.” Among those
endorsing the paper are former Surgeon General C. Evere o
former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Frank Young ond the
head of the Center of Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University,
Edmund Pellegrino.

But while opponents contend that the embryo ban clearly applies to
Stem cell research, some of them admit privately that they’re boxed
in by the NIH move. They note that the legal interpretation
Supporting NIH--that stem cells are not embryos and thus are not
covered by the ban--would be difficult to fight in court. At the same
time, they say attempting to reword the ban so that it specifically
mentions stem cells could be perilous, since such a move could be
viewed as a tacit admission that the NIH interpretation has some
merit. This perception, they say, would be particularly damaging to
their cause if the rewrite failed.

One option under consideration is to focus on the guidelines NIH is
set to release in the next couple of weeks, which will dictate such
things as the process grantees must follow in obtaining stem cells
for their research. Opponents may attempt to add language to the NIH
funding bill that would attempt to block federal funding for stem
cell experiments by forbidding NIH from spending any money to
implement the guidelines.

Meanwhile, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), which
later this month is expected to release its assessment of the ethics
of stem cell research, is providing fodder for both sides.

Those favoring stem cell research are heartened by the fact NBAC
appears close to adopting a position that would allow federally-
Supported stem cell experiments to include work @irectly with human
embryos, as long as the embryos were originally created for
infertility treatments and would be discarded were they not donated
to science.

But opponents have seized on language in an early draft of the
commission’s still-evolving report on stem cells as supportive of
their arguments against the NIH initiative. The draft states that “as
long as embryos are destroyed as part of the research enterprise,
researchers using embryonic stem cells (and those who fund them) will
be complicit in the death of embryos.” The head of NBAC, Princeton
University President Harold Shapiro, said that while he supports
funding for both use and derivation, he thinks the report should be
reworded to indicate that there is a difference between research that
involves extracting stem cells from embryos and that which involves
work exclusively with stem cells.

Richard Doerflinger of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops
said any attempt by NBAC to alter the draft language will be seen ag
“fuzz2ing-up their position for the political purpose of playing ball
with NIH.” Doerflinger also said the fact that some commissioners
don’t want to rule out the creation of embryos sOlely for research
purposes gives the appearance that NBAC is biased in favor of stem
cell research and conld dilute the political influence of any
recommendation it makes.

C

3

fos
JUL Oo8, ’°99 00:02 (ET) To: Dr Harold Varmus PAGE 3 of 3
47/87/1999 19:04 15689949366 WASHINGTON FAX PAGE 3

Page 2 of 3 (WSFAX 7/8/99) Stem cells (Cont’d)

report already has prompted the chair of the House Commerce
Committee, Rep. Tom Bliley, R-VA, to announce he will hold hearings
on stem cell research. in a statement released in May, Bliley said
was “deeply concerned” about the draft recommendations and “gravely
disappointed” that NBAC was not considering “substitutes to using
human embryos for scientific experimentation.”

Even though NBAC has yet to issue a final recommendation, the draft 8

“Our hearing will examine the Clinton administration's proposals and
explore alternatives,” Bliley said. A spokesman for Bliley said this
week that the congressman still plans to hold stem cell hearings but
has not set a date.

Organizers of the CURe advocacy group hope to rise above the din of
the debate by keeping lawmakers focused on the potential of stem
cells to relieve human suffering. Dan Perry, executive director of
the Alliance for Aging Research, who is serving as chair of the
group, has said CURe hopes to avoid tit-for-tat skirmishes with
opponents by “putting a human face on this issue.”

--Matthew Davis
Also availabale today on the Washington Fax web site:
INADEQUATE PROJECT MANAGEMENT AT DOE RESULTS IN FREQUENT COST
OVERRUNS, DELAYS, SAYS NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

http: //www.washingtonfax.com/p1/1999/19990708a-html
EAE AREER ERMERAKERRERREREERREENAEEKEAKEKREEERRREE

AMA DELEGATES ADOPT NEW POLICY ON PATIENT CONFIDENTIALITY IN MEDICAL
RESEARCH

http: //www.washingtonfax.com/p1/1999/19990708b. html

Compiled and Published by: WASHINGTON FAX: AN INFORMATION SERVICE
Publisher: Bradie Metheny Executive Editor: Shirley Haley
Phone: 508-999-6097 Fax: 508-994-9366