After a heartbreaking postponement for millions of American families, the U.S. Congress finally passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (H.R. 810), only to have President Bush issue his first veto, which was sustained in the House. The fight, and the heartbreaks, will continue because most Americans feel it is clearly time to ease federal funding restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.
For my family, the stakes are personal. Our 14-year-old son Matt has Type 1 diabetes, the most critical form of the disease, which cannot be controlled by exercise or diet. Matt was diagnosed with Type 1 eight months ago. As a dedicated athlete who has spent three hours a day, five days a week for the past six years committed to his sport, and qualifying for four consecutive national skating championships, Matt had already experienced several “life lessons” about overcoming obstacles to achieve your goals. He took this one, a big one, in stride. He continues to skate hard and compete successfully. He, like others, learned to accept the reality of “managing” diabetes and not allowing it to dictate or restrict their lives. This is truth that requires an asterisk.
The disease requires constant monitoring and management in the form of finger-stick blood tests and insulin shots — several times each day. A diabetic cannot be far from a glucose meter or insulin for too long. One of the first prescriptions we filled after Matt’s diagnosis was for a “Glucagon Emergency Kit” used to save your child’s life if his blood sugar suddenly climbs so high he loses consciousness; part of the new parent’s guide to managing diabetes. Diabetic incidents range from mild — Matt’s three day hospital stay last April to fight a foot infection — to serious — coma. Though diabetes can be managed, it can cause serious and costly complications, including blindness, kidney failure, stroke, amputation and premature death. Diabetes is often mentioned in daily newspapers — in the obituaries.
Parents, family and friends, as well as the patients themselves, can attest to the stress and toil resulting from living with diabetes; we consider ourselves blessed to be dealing with a disease that is manageable.
Something can be done to improve this situation, but apparently not when election-year politics gets in the way.
Scientific experts agree that diabetes is one of the diseases most likely to be addressed by stem cell research. Stem cells — both adult and embryonic — are of significant scientific interest because they have shown an ability to be coaxed into becoming insulin-producing cells that could, conceivably, be used to replace those dead cells in people with Type 1 diabetes. While clinical trials of insulin-producing cell transplantations appear to hold significant promise, the cells used for these procedures must come from organ donations of deceased individuals. But there are, at present, only 2,000 donated pancreases each year, while thereare as many as 3 million Americans with type 1 diabetes. An alternate source of insulin-producing cells, which stem cells could provide, would be a major step in providing cure therapeutics to all people with type 1 diabetes.
Stem cell research will also enable science to better understand the sources of many diseases, as well as test new medications at the cellular level — a safer, quicker route than animal or human trials.
Numerous other diseases and medical conditions might also be addressed by this new avenue of research: heart disease, Parkinson’s, MS, muscular dystrophy, spinal cord injury and more. Many patients will not survive to benefit from the results of stem cell research, but even if positive results are a decade away, millions will have a new lease on life, including our son.
Some opponents of embryonic stem cell argue that this research has shown no results. They are wrong. Scientists have used embryonic stem cells to develop new nerve cells, retina cells and heart cells. Lab animals have been cured of genetic disorders and successfully treated for paralysis with embryonic stem cell therapies. It is true that no human therapies are available yet from this research, but this is all the more reason to put more energy and financing behind this endeavor.
Alternative legislation aimed at promoting ways of developing stem cells without using embryos was passed in the Senate, but it doesn’t address the real issue. Currently, such research is theoretical — and it is not restricted by federal policy. Lawmakers — and citizens — should recognize that such research could supplement embryonic stem cell research, but it cannot serve as a substitute.
There are more than a hundred stem cell lines that now exist — many tied to specific illnesses — and they represent the best current opportunities for scientists to attack disease. To enable American scientists to use these cell lines to their full potential, weneed the provisions of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, not alternative legislation.
Although the vote was targeted by some on the right as a political litmus test, both the House and the Senate passed the legislation with significant majorities — 63 senators supported it — but it takes a two-thirds majority to override a presidential veto and the House vote fell short.
This is not a pro-life issue. Nancy Reagan, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, former Sen. John Danforth, and my own Sen. John Warner, among others, all believe that it is possible to support the sanctity of life and help the living through science.
Supporters of stem cell research are disappointed, but not defeated. The stakes are too high, and for some of us, too personal, to be deterred from our commitment to bring this powerful resource to bear on so many devastating diseases.
Our efforts will continue and, hopefully, the next Congressional votes will not come so close to an election that it gets tainted with rhetoric and remains focused on saving lives.
