The case for expanded stem cell research in Illinois

Human embryonic stem cells were first isolated in 1998. Just a few years later, their promise was cut short by the policy of our federal government limiting federal funding of research involving human embryos. Because the federal government is the largest funder of medical research in the country, President Bush's executive order, entered August 9, 2001 and allowing funding of research involving only embryonic stem cells lines created before that date, effectively cut off a field of research before it had even begun. This decision deprived my eight-year-old daughter, who has type 1 diabetes, and millions like her who suffer from other diseases or conditions like Parkinson's, ALS, and spinal cord injuries, of the promise offered by embryonic stem cell research.

Unfortunately for those who could benefit from this research, politics have clouded the science. Embryonic stem cells can come from two places: excess embryos created at fertility clinics in excess of need (some estimate that 400,000 such embryos exist) or through a process of nuclear transfer technology. Excess embryos that would otherwise be destroyed could be used for research purposes, with the written informed consent of those who created the embryo, as happens with organ donation. In the process of nuclear transfer technology, an egg cell would be removed from the donor and its nucleus removed. The cell would then be combined with another cell from the body of the donor, placed in a Petri dish and chemically triggered to grow. The resulting collection of cells, never combined with sperm or placed in a womb, yields stem cells that could be used for research. The benefit of nuclear transfer technology is significant: it offers a source of cells with the same genetic make-up as the donor that could be transplanted without need for toxic immunosuppressant drugs.

The need to move forward with this important research has taken on an added urgency in recent months for a variety of reasons. First, there are something less than 20 stem cell lines (of an originally announced 78) currently available for research using federal dollars, and all of those are contaminated with animal cells in ways that have just in recent days been shown to make them useless in treating humans. The research will not progress without access to more and better stem cell lines.

Second, and notwithstanding the misrepresentations of some who oppose this research, recent successes with embryonic stem cells should inspire a more concerted effort to get on with the research. One experiment used human embryonic stem cells as biological pacemakers to correct faulty heart rhythms in pigs. In another study, scientists showed for the first time that human embryonic stem cells can turn into eye cells crucial to vision. A third experiment, using mouse embryonic stem cells, suggests that embryonic cells can produce healing compounds that can help ailing organs repair themselves. With respect to diabetes, we know that insulin-producing cells have already been created using mouse embryonic stem cells and there has been success in preliminary studies using embryonic stem cell lines from humans.

Though valuable for treating certain diseases, like some types of cancer, adult stem cells have never shown the same flexibility as embryonic stem cells. The limitations of adult stem cells were identified recently at the University of Chicago, which reported the failure of adult stem cells to regenerate damaged heart tissue. With respect to diabetes, Harvard researchers have shown that new beta cells in the pancreas are formed from existing beta cells, and not from differentiated adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells may thus be the only source of new beta cells.

But there is no need to choose between adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research, as any reputable scientist would tell you. Indeed, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation ("JDRF") funds both kinds of research. Only if we pursue both kinds of stem cell research simultaneously, perhaps using side-by- side comparisons, will we be able to fully realize the potential of all that the research has to offer.

Anyone who has a disease that could benefit from this research or knows someone who does should be outraged by the political maneuvering affecting research freedom and progress. Without the support of the federal government, research has slowed, scientists have opted out of this kind of research or moved to countries more receptive to research, and those who continue with it here must figure out how to attract and use private dollars to conduct research on embryos from sources other than the approved lines without putting their federal funding at risk.

States have been left with no choice but to fill the gap in funding left by the federal government. The most notable of these is California, which in November passed a ballot initiative to fund stem cell research with nearly 60 percent of voters supporting the initiative. Hundreds of patient advocacy groups, including JDRF, research institutions, business organizations, and over 30 Nobel Prize winning scientists endorsed the initiative. Proposition 71 established the California Regenerative Medicine Institute, which will fund stem cell research through bonds, issued in $300 million increments over the course of 10 years.

California's effort has spurred other states to act, including New Jersey, where the governor recently announced a $389 million investment in stem cell research and our neighboring state Wisconsin, where a similar $375 million proposal has been announced. Each of these states recognize that it is not enough to stand by while the federal government abdicates its role as a leader in the field of medical research and other states seize the opportunity to support its citizens with important medical research and clinical trials.

Illinois may have the most viable stem cell research proposal of all. In November, Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes announced his proposal for the Illinois Regenerative Medicine Institute ("IRMI"). Like Proposition 71, the Hynes proposal will be funded by general obligation bonds, which will be issued in 100 million increments over the course of 10 years, for a total of 1 billion. But unlike the California proposal, this one has identified a source of revenue to pay the debt service on the bonds: a 6 percent tax on elective cosmetic surgery. Some may balk at the prospect of the tax, notably plastic surgeons and those who support their work, like botox manufacturers. But the proposal only seeks to tax purely cosmetic procedures (botox injections and liposuction are two of the most common) that will affect only a tiny percentage of the population, and will not affect medically necessary reconstructive procedures. For a botox injection costing just $400, the tax amounts to only $24, less than the tax on a similarly priced outfit if purchased in the City of Chicago. And, better yet, we know that the proceeds from the tax on elective cosmetic surgery will go straight to important medical research.

The IRMI proposal first needs the approval of a majority of both chambers of the Illinois legislature before it will appear on the ballot for approval by Illinois voters, likely in the fall of 2006. Already, health care advocacy organizations, including JDRF, are mobilized to seek the necessary votes from our state legislators. Some of these same organizations worked on a prior effort to pass legislation that would not have funded stem cell research, but would have made it the policy of the state of Illinois to support all forms of stem cell research, established oversight of the research, and created a mechanism to allow for the donation of excess embryos from fertility clinics through a process of informed consent. That legislation failed by just two votes in the fall veto session for reasons that had more to do with politics than science. Unlike the prior legislation, the new proposal asks our legislators to put the decision to the voters of Illinois, which should make the job of our legislators an easy one.

Those who support this research must make their voices heard. A majority of people, of every political or religious affiliation, support all forms of stem cell research, including embryonic stem cell research. If we can convey that message to our legislators, our researchers can get on with their work.

_______________

Ms. Livingston, formerly a partner at Jenner & Block, is currently the volunteer Legislative Chair for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation-Illinois.