Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007
Floor Speech
STEM CELL RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - April 11, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, this is indeed a difficult issue and debate. I respect so much my colleague from Oregon. I know he speaks with passion and heart as he deals with these contentious but important issues. I must express some disagreement with him, while I agree with most of what he said.
The issue of stem cells is a vital and emotional one, and we need to deal with it carefully as we move forward in the Senate.
The embryonic stem cell debate stimulates some of us to defend the inherent human desire to make discoveries and to build on them; likewise, this debate galvanizes others of us who defend human life and believe it should be valued in all its forms. The engineered creation or destruction of a human embryo for the sake of scientific advancement cannot be the answer to any of our ever-growing challenges.
In this great country of ours, and around the world, there are many suffering from debilitating conditions and ravaging diseases such as multiple sclerosis, diabetes, and Alzheimer's. These people are in need of medical treatment. Thanks to the brilliant minds and innovative ways of doctors and scientists across the globe, many medical treatments are now available. We can credit advances in stem cell research with this expanding treatment.
Stem cell research holds tremendous opportunities for our society to help treat and cure people's diseases and illnesses; and some would like to extend the success found through federally funded adult stem cell research to embryonic research. They have proposed that we harvest these human embryos--which were created with the knowledge that many of them would be destroyed--to be used for research.
While I, and others, understand the great need, we also know that there has to be a better way. In fact, I know there is. That is what I want to discuss today.
The legislation currently being considered will direct Federal taxpayer dollars specifically for the destruction of human embryos to develop cells that might lead to treatments for various health problems. This raises moral objections with me because of my deeply held religious beliefs.
We are currently funding research on nonembryonic stem cells derived from adult stem cells, amniotic cord blood or placenta sources. These have proven their ability to target many, if not eventually all, of the conditions expected to be addressed through embryonic stem cell research.
The University of Florida has one of the top five adult stem cell research centers in the world and their findings are already making a difference.
At the University of Florida, researchers are making great headway with stem cell research. They have in the works treatments for heart disease, a cure for diabetes, and preventions for diabetic eye diseases. Additionally, researchers at the University of Florida are making significant strides on the path toward reversing adult blindness, treating neurological conditions, and rebuilding human brain cells. Researchers in Gainesville are also leading the world in identifying cancer stem cells a primary step toward identifying therapies to cure various forms of cancer.
It is worth noting that all of these advances have a vital common thread; each of the aforementioned breakthroughs came about thanks to nonembryonic stem cells.
At the end of 2005, President Bush signed a bill that aims to further develop our Nation's cord blood inventory to allow for increased availability of existing and future stem cell treatments; and I was very proud to have supported this legislation.
As my colleagues know, this legislation made its way through Congress with tremendous success. The House of Representatives passed it with only one dissenting vote, and in the Senate it passed it unanimously.
The Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005 created a new Federal program to collect and store cord blood. In addition, the law expands the existing bone marrow registry to include cord blood.
New programs utilizing cord blood, such as the recently created CORD:USE Center at the Winnie Palmer Hospital in my own home State of Florida, are building on this valuable and expanding foundation. These programs are advancing science without compromising morality.
Winnie Palmer Hospital for Women and Babies in Orlando is now able to contribute a diverse and increased supply of cord blood. This is reassuring news for the thousands of people who would otherwise die unnecessarily each and every year were it not for the large, genetically-diversified stem cell bank that is now available. The uses of cord blood are fascinating and they speak of breakthroughs.
Stephen Sprague, one of the first adults to receive a stem cell transplant from umbilical cord blood, recently visited Winnie Palmer Hospital and its cord blood bank to express his gratitude for what they are doing. Stephen was diagnosed with chronic myelogenous leukemia in 1995, and when chemotherapy and other treatments did not work, and a match for a bone marrow transplant could not be found, he was informed that essentially nothing more could be done. Luckily, Stephen's oncologist was able to enroll him in one of the first clinical trials using umbilical cord blood.
A wonderful mother agreed to donate her placenta; from that, the lifesaving cord blood was collected. Ten years after receiving the stem cell transplant, Stephen remains completely cancer-free. Not only this, but before his cord blood transplant, Stephen was an insulin-dependent diabetic. Following the transplant, Stephen has not needed to use insulin; through taking only oral diabetic medications, his sugar levels have remained normal.
So, not only was Stephen's life saved by the transplant, his quality of life was improved. It is no wonder that Stephen has now dedicated his life to telling his cord blood story of hope to patients and mothers who can also give the gift of life through the donation of their cord blood.
Umbilical cord blood stems cells have now been used in thousands of patients requiring a potentially lifesaving stem cell transplant and with good results.
The collection of these cells from the delivery of a healthy newborn baby can result in a stem cell transplant desperately needed to save someone else's life. Essentially, new life is helping to stimulate more life.
This allows us to help countless people in need without the moral dilemma presented by the embryonic alternative which, from my perspective, is no true alternative.
Cord blood is currently being used to treat nearly 80 diseases.
Adult stem cells have made, and will continue to make, a recognizable contribution to helping those with leukemia, sickle cell disease, and other potentially fatal illnesses and conditions.
Proponents of embryonic stem cell research say they want to make available for research only those embryos that are, in their words, ``unwanted.'' One of my colleagues recently asserted, ``If these embryos were going to create life, we wouldn't be supporting research on them.
Yet, there is proof that these embryos are living things and that they are wanted. Yes, these embryos can, and are, growing into fully formed babies. Known as ``snowflake babies,'' these babies are born from adopted embryos--excess embryos from successful in vitro fertilization parents that are donated and adopted by a couple where fertilization techniques were forgone or unsuccessful.
To date, 133 snowflake babies have been born, with nearly another two dozen on the way.
Had these--in the words of the critics, ``unwanted'' embryos--been tossed aside, human life would have literally been discarded.
Many Americans agree that we need to move forward on this issue with prudence, and in a way that respects and values human life. As we stand to balance our interests in helping those in need without destroying human life, there is a good piece of legislation being considered that I want my colleagues to consider.
Under the HOPE Act, no living embryo would be damaged or harmed for the sake of research. What the HOPE Act would do is allow scientists for the first time to apply for Federal funds to perform research on embryos that have died naturally during the in vitro process. For those hoping to find a cure through embryonic stem cell research, this would be a modest and principled step toward achieving that goal.
It would also be the right step to take, because it is the only option that opens up new frontiers without damaging human life; a move in this direction would not detract from the real results we have seen through federally-sponsored adult stem cell research. I encourage my colleagues to strongly consider voting in favor of the HOPE Act.
We must be dedicated only to research which preserves and protects lives. Adult stem cells hold great promise, have had more proven success in lab trials and actual applications, and they do not require the destruction of human life. This is where our Federal funding should remain focused.
At this time, efforts to federally fund a different area would siphon money from proven research.
If it is possible to simultaneously defend human life and help others in need, why on earth would we not do it? Why wouldn't that be the better option? We know it is possible to do both at the same time.
It seems to me to be the reasonable thing to do. That is why I urge my colleagues today to support the HOPE Act, to support a way of continuing to advance the frontiers of research while at the same time avoiding the troublesome and meddlesome moral dilemmas that funding for embryonic stem cells would present.
There is an option. There is an alternative. There is an opportunity to advance stem cell research of the embryonic type, knowing we have already had great success with adult stem cells, with cord blood, and all of the other usages, but at the same time not tampering with the moral dilemma we would have to cross if we are destroying embryonic life in order to have stem cell research in that direction.
I yield the floor.
Source