Ethical concerns have previously delayed federal funding for stem cell research.

By: Vivian Cheng

When President Obama rescinded Bush’s ban on federal funding for most human embryonic stem cell research on March 9, 2009, the scientific world celebrated a great victory. A month later, we are forced to confront the reality that such a victory is not without its limits. Obama ordered the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to draft guidelines for embryonic stem cell research which were announced on April 17, 2009. Most notable among the guidelines is the strict rule that stem cell lines can only be obtained from embryos remaining after fertility procedures. Such excess embryos would be discarded in any case. Although these guidelines have been criticized as an excessive compromise with pro-life supporters, the NIH perceptively balanced the public’s ethical concerns with the necessities for scientific progress.

In addition to only funding already discarded embryos, the NIH draft requires individual informed consent from all donors, no financial incentives for embryo donation, and a clear division between research funded by taxpayer money and privately funded research that is free from the NIH’s rules. Donors must fully understand that any benefits derived from research with their cells will not yield personal returns. The NIH prohibits the funding of human-animal hybrid research, in which human stem cells are mixed with animal cells.

The surplus fertility embryo stipulation remains the most controversial rule of all because it forbids the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) to obtain embryonic stem cells. SCNT involves removing the nucleus of one egg cell and replacing it with the nucleus of a second cell to create a stem cell line identical to the donor. This technique would allow researchers to create disease-specific embryonic stem cell lines from patients with diseases like Parkinson’s to precisely test potential therapies.

Although this guideline is consistent with current federal laws that prohibit the use of government grants to create, damage, or destroy embryos solely for research, some researchers and patient advocates hoped that Obama’s executive order would change this. Dr. Irving Weissman, director of Stanford’s Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine expressed his dismay with the NIH in a press release from the Stanford University Medical Center. Weissman was surprised that SCNT was banned since both the National Academy of Sciences and the International Society for Stem Cell Research support the use of SCNT-derived cell lines. Weissman is involved in both organizations and noted that both played a role in shaping the NIH’s draft.

Despite the potential setback from testing therapies with disease-specific stem cells, this was a pragmatic move by the NIH. While we would like to think that March 9 was an instant win for science, we must still consider the ethical concerns it raises, or else federal funding for stem cell research could be delayed by strong opposition. Furthermore, the NIH encourages research on induced pluripotent stem cells—adult stem cells reprogrammed to act identical to embryonic stem cells, which have the ability to differentiate into any cell type. The guidelines ultimately give scientists what they wanted most—the ability to work with new, diverse stem cell lines. Having different stem cell lines is important because they are necessary for research on therapies that may be applied to a wide population.

While Bush essentially forced his restriction on researchers, the NIH’s current guideline revisions are subject to a 30-day comment period before issuing final regulations, which is predicted to occur in July. Obama’s executive order also mandates that the NIH periodically update the guidelines, staying up to date with technological advances. With these new ethically and scientifically sound rules, hopefully the NIH can soon use some of its $10 billion received in stimulus funds to researching stem cell therapies.