General Information
Testimony of Barbara Atkinson, MD, on Stem Cell Research
Mar 17, 2005
Testimony of Barbara Atkinson, MDExecutive Vice Chancellor
University of Kansas Medical Center
On House Bill 2355
House Federal and State Affairs Committee, Room 313-S, Statehouse
March 16, 2005
Thank you to Chairman Edmonds, Vice Chair Siegfried, and the entire Committee for inviting me here this afternoon.
Serving as the Executive Vice Chancellor for the University of Kansas Medical Center, I am here to testify against House Bill 2355, an Act which, as now drafted, would restrict important medical research in the State of Kansas.
My opposition to this bill has nothing to do with the bill's professed objective, the banning of human reproductive cloning. Rather, it is grounded in my belief that the specific language of this bill as currently written will have significant unintended consequences, notably the restriction of medical research in the State of Kansas that holds the potential to alleviate much human suffering.
The issues surrounding stem cell research and therapeutic cloning have become highly politicized in recent weeks and months. As a physician, an educator, a researcher and a leader in the health care community, I believe it is my responsibility and the responsibility of all scientists and educators to be a resource, both to the public and to you, the lawmakers to whom the people of Kansas have entrusted responsibility to decide crucial issues such as this. Thank you for inviting me to testify before your Committee today.
Let me state clearly at the outset that I understand and appreciate the very serious moral and ethical considerations that have motivated lawmakers to propose this legislation. There can be no doubt that human reproductive cloning, which has as its goal the creation of a baby, is repugnant to our society at large and to the research and medical communities. Leading scientists, including those at the National Academy of Sciences and certainly the faculty of the University of Kansas Medical Center, unambiguously agree that human reproductive cloning should not be allowed. Further, I strongly urge you to introduce and to adopt legislation that clearly prohibits human reproductive cloning.
Unfortunately, this particular bill is not that legislation. The critical problem that I and many others see with HB 2355 is that, while it aims to outlaw human reproductive cloning, the specific language of the bill does so at the expense of criminalizing the exploration of an entire category of research that holds the potential to profoundly ease human suffering—research that will allow us to study the molecular basis of diseases as they develop from conception to death. The ultimate hope is to eventually discover treatments and cures for such chronic diseases as Parkinson's, juvenile diabetes, ALS, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, cancer, and spinal cord injuries which affect millions of Americans.
Much of the controversy and misunderstanding centers on use of the emotional and highly-charged word "cloning." When most of us hear this word out of context, we tend to think of the process of creating genetically identical human beings—human reproductive cloning—a terrifying prospect to be sure.
In fact, taken literally, cloning simply refers to the process of growing a colony of genetically identical cells or producing millions of copies of a DNA fragment that have been inserted into a bacteria or cell. This commonly accepted practice spawned the biotechnical industry in the 1980s. The discoveries made in that industry have resulted in the development of powerful new drugs, and insulin to treat diabetes. Researchers also achieved other social benefits such as tracking the origins of biological weapons, catching criminals and freeing innocent people wrongly charges with crimes. In fact, all cloning is not equal.
There is another type of cloning, called "therapeutic cloning" that seeks to use these processes not to create a child but to create new cures for deadly and debilitating diseases.
One of the most promising forms of therapeutic cloning is called “somatic cell nuclear transfer” or SCNT for short. SCNT is the transplanting of a patient’s DNA into an unfertilized egg in order to grow stem cells that could replace organs or pieces of organs in order to cure debilitating diseases. They could also be used to discover new drugs for the treatment of patients.
SCNT is not meant to create new life; it literally extends life. SCNT works with the cells of an already-living person to create an environment where these cells can multiply to produce stem cells. These stem cells can then replace damaged cells in the body, such as bone marrow for leukemia and chemotherapy patients, nerve cells for Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease patients, heart muscle cells for diseased hearts and pancreatic islet cells for diabetic patients. I liken it to a transplant. None of us would object to a sibling giving up a kidney in order to save the life of a sister or brother. The difference with therapeutic use of SCNT is that the cells given up are then reintroduced to the donor himself in order to carry out potentially life-saving treatment.
SCNT is also essential to help scientists understand how stem cells and other cells develop. This includes understanding how cancer cells grow and develop, which is essential for ultimately finding a cure for cancer.
The goal of therapeutic cloning or SCNT is not to produce babies. There is no fertilization of the egg by sperm. No implantation in the uterus and no pregnancy. The goal is to produce cells. [See graph]
SCNT aims to treat or cure patients by creating tailor-made, genetically identical stem cells that the patient’s body will not reject after transplantation. In other words, SCNT could allow patients to be cured using their own DNA and could, therefore, result in significant breakthroughs just as the use of stem cells in bone marrow transplants is saving lives today. Sadly, SCNT would be criminalized under the provisions of HB 2355.
At the Medical Center, we have researchers whose work includes the study of early stem cells. Currently, three researchers conduct research on the small number (15 lines) of NIH-approved early stem cell lines available to government supported researchers. This research has been approved and peer-reviewed by the NIH. Regrettably, the cells currently available to researchers are substandard in many ways. First, they are not direct models for genetically based human disease. Second, very few of these existing lines even grow. Even fewer of them have the adaptability needed for them to transform into other cell types. And finally, the cells are not derived from a sufficiently racially or ethnically diverse population.
We are very supportive of efforts to utilize adult stem cells – stem cells drawn from fetal cord blood or from other adult tissue sources -- for biomedical research. Both adult stem cells and early stem cells offer extraordinary potential for cures. It may be that one type of stem cell is the cure for one disease, while another is the treatment required for a different disease, much as one drug isn’t the therapy for all diseases.
However, adult stem cells and early stem cells are not replacements for one another. Because early stem cells are pluripotent – meaning they can become any cell in the body – they can be applied to a far greater variety of contexts than adult stem cells and can also be grown in a lab indefinitely. Consequently, we believe that pursuing both avenues provides the best hope for achieving dramatic progress in discovering new cures.
I would also like to point out that there are other unintended consequences to HB 2355 beyond criminalizing SCNT. The spirit of discovery that fuels scientific advancement in our society would be lost. In addition, Kansas patients may be deprived of the benefits of currently accepted treatments and the science behind those treatments. And patients -- and perhaps physicians as well -- may leave our medical centers and hospitals to pursue the possibility of more innovative care provided in other states.
In summary, I understand and appreciate the deep moral and ethical considerations that motivate lawmakers to propose this legislation--but I remain convinced that laws that would prevent and criminalize the pursuit of research to discover life saving cures and treatments are inappropriate. I applaud and support your efforts to outlaw human reproductive cloning, as do all researchers at KU Medical Center – but I urge you to advance the cause of research, education, and health care by opposing legislation that limits the life-saving cures and treatments central to our shared mission and the overall quality of life of Kansans.
Thank you for inviting me to share my views with the committee today. I am pleased to introduce Dr. David Albertini – a nationally recognized researcher who is the Hall Family Foundation Professor of Molecular Medicine at KU School of Medicine. Dr. Albertini came to KUMC last year from Tufts University, where he served as Professor of Anatomy and Cellular Biology, and Obstetrics and Gynecology. His research focuses on factors regulating the development of healthy eggs, early fetal development, and infertility treatments.
Also with me today is Martha Montello, PhD, associate professor in the Department of History and Philosophy of Medicine. Dr. Montello is a noted bioethicist. She has held faculty positions at both Yale Medical School and Harvard Medical School before coming to KUMC in 1997. She chairs the Pediatrics Ethics Committee, directs and teaches courses in medical ethics, publishes research work in the areas of medical ethics, literature and medicine, and patient-physician relationship.
I invite you to ask me, Dr. Albertini and Dr. Montello any follow up questions from my testimony today. Email this article
