Scientific American is running a long interview with Representative Diana DeGette, who has worked on legislation to overturn the federal ban on funding for embryonic stem cell research. Her book Sex, Science and Stem Cells: Inside the Right Wing Assault on Reason, has just been released.
Reading the interview reminded me how frequently European scientists are surprised that debates in the US link research on embryonic stem cells with contraception and sex education.
(For the record: no embryos being used for research on embryonic stem cells came from sex. These are embryos that formed outside a woman’s body and have never been in a womb. A survey last year found that couples who have extra embryos left over after fertility treatment are much more willing to donate them for research or to have them destroyed than to give these embryos to other couples seeking fertility treatment.)
The scientists who read this blog will probably be more interested in a role for the NIH to provide ethical oversight at the federal level for cell-based research.
The scientists who read this blog will probably be more interested in a role for the NIH to provide ethical oversight at the federal level for cell-based research.
Here’s the quote from DeGette: “It shocks people when I tell them we don’t have any ethical review over what’s going on in stem cell research on a national basis. I’m actually getting ready to introduce new legislation with Mike Castle, which will not just reverse the president’s executive order but will also give support at the NIH for ethical cell-based research, and it will create federal, ethical oversight. So, that, to me, is going to be the exciting advance that I hope we’ll make after the next election.”
This new role for the NIH was also discussed at a Congressional hearing in May .
American scientists have also frequently expressed their dismay to me that the funding ban has stripped NIH of a valuable leadership role. The NIH has already had to dodge political pressures with the NIH Embryonic Stem Cell Registry.
In the UK and other countries, scientists who propose research on human embryos (but not to my understanding, human embryonic stem cell lines) must first obtain a license from the government. It’s unclear how federal oversight of stem-cell research would be implemented. Right now in the US, much human embryonic stem cell research is not funded by NIH. Both the National Academies and the International Society of Stem Cell Research have created guidelines for what kinds of research should be allowed.
At universities, research plans are approved by stem cell research oversight committees, known as SCROs. In my reporting, I’ve found that SCROs take their work very seriously, and that they are eager for guidance from over-arching institutions. The big question is whether NIH taking a regulatory role would slow down research, help streamline SCROs work, or prevent unethical research that is currently out-of-bounds for other regulations.
See Consent issues restrict stem cell research
Scientific definition by political request
Irrational Japanese regulations hinder embryonic stem cell research