Hope Offered Through Principled and Ethical Stem Cell Research Act--Continued

Floor Speech

HOPE OFFERED THROUGH PRINCIPLED AND ETHICAL STEM CELL RESEARCH ACT--Continued -- (Senate - April 11, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ISAKSON. I acknowledge the patience of the Presiding Officer. I know the Presiding Officer was in the chair last night when the Senator from Iowa and I had an exchange. I want to repeat some of what was said, so I apologize to the distinguished Presiding Officer, but in the end I want to try to synthesize what got me to the point of being a part of S. 30.

In August 2001, when the directive came down, I started learning about stem cells. When the veto took place last year, I wondered what more I needed to know to try to find a way to deal with the concerns of some but the compassion of everyone. I stumbled upon a professor at the University of Georgia, Dr. Steven Stice. I really didn't stumble upon him; one of my interns, an honor student, directed me to him. He said he was doing research in this area.

As it turned out, he was operating three stem cell lines, lines BGO1, BGO2, and BGO3. So I went to the university and spent 2 days going through what their research team was doing and the way in which they were derived. I came to learn that Dr. Stice and his team, like teams in California, Wisconsin, and other States that have since derived embryonic stem cells this way, derived them from what is known as naturally dead or arrested embryos. Those are embryos that after 7 days following in vitro fertilization stopped cellular division. The embryo itself is clinically dead, as is a human being who is brain dead, although all their other organs are working. But contained within that embryo are stem cells. So it has gone through a natural death, not one at the hands of a doctor or anyone else, and it produces these stem cells.

After reading everything I could on it, I want to read one sentence from just one study which verified the pluripotency, the undifferentiation, and the independence of those lines:

Lines BGO1, BGO2, and BGO3, human embryonic stem cells are, therefore, independent, undifferentiated and pluripotent lines that can be maintained without an accumulation of karyotypic abnormalities.

It took a long time to practice those last two words and say them right, but what that practically means is exactly what we all seek.

That is, embryonic stem cells that have the full potential for research, to answer the hope all of us in this room have expressed today, can, in fact, be derived from embryos that are not destroyed by the human hand but through the natural process of the life cycle.

So I asked myself this question: Well, if this is a legitimate debate--which it is a legitimate debate--if science has found there is a way to derive these stem cells without the destruction of the embryo, and if--which is true--5 of the 21 lines currently exempted by the Presidential order of 2001, are, in fact, 5 1/2 years of study side by side with stem cells derived by destroying the embryo, and if we have clear evidence they are undifferentiated, they are pluripotent, and they do not have abnormalities, then this is the answer to thread the needle to solve the problem.

The White House has acknowledged they will sign the bill. So with respect for every Member of this Senate who has eloquently spoken on behalf of the hope of furthering research, I do not know what the results of the research are going to be, but I know this: If we do not do it, we will never know, and if there is a way to do it and accelerate it and thread the needle, which this does, then I submit we should do it.

I would encourage all of my colleagues to support S. 30.

I acknowledge the tremendous work of the Senator from Minnesota and others who have helped. I appreciate the time allotted to us in this debate. In the end, I think the most used word in the last 2 days has been ``hope.'' There is now a hope that we actually bring about the reality of scientific development for the cure of deadly and terrible diseases and do so in a way that recognizes the natural process of the life cycle and the advancement of the science.

With that, I yield back our time in this cycle.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Minnesota for their diligent work over the last 2 days on the floor of the Senate dealing with this issue. I admire the passion of both. I am so pleased their passion is rooted in their belief, which I share, that we can move science forward, that we can enhance research for what are currently incurable diseases, and that we can do so in the public domain.

Senator Harkin made a very good statement--he has made a number of good statements, but he made a good statement a little bit ago about why NIH is important. NIH is important because the research gets in the public domain, not in the proprietary domain of an investor or someone who is hoping to find something but does not want to share that with anybody else. So it is important to find a way to get the NIH investment in the embryonic stem cell research. S. 5 and S. 30 approach it from a different direction, but the goal in the end is the same; that is, to further the science and to find cures.

I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s. In the 1960s, I am reminded of a statement I heard--often repeated--by then Senator and previously Attorney General Robert Kennedy. I remember a particular speech he made, when, having returned from Biafra, where there was a terrible famine at that time, he said: Some people see things as they are, and ask, why?--referring to famine. I--meaning him--see things as they never were and ask, why not?

That is what this is all about. Why not find cures? And why not find ways to seek those cures that pass the test we desire to pass that S. 30 portends? I have stated on more than one occasion the methodology and the derivation of these stem cells. It has been questioned a couple of times, but facts are stubborn. BGO1, BG02, and BG03, currently under the investment domain of the National Institutes of Health--lines for which diabetes research, neurological progenitor cell research, and other research takes place at this very day--were all derived from embryos that had passed the seventh day following in vitro fertilization, were naturally dead or arrested but contained pluripotent embryonic stem cells.

I might add, in vitro fertilization takes place every day in the United States of America. My family has been touched by it. Many families have been touched by it. In each of those processes, the development of those embryos goes through the three stages I have referred to: Gardner principle I, the first 72 hours; Gardner principle II, the next 4 days; and then those thereafter where the cells stop dividing, where the pluripotent stem cells exist but the embryo is not implanted.

Now, there have been some who have talked about: Well, there is no evidence of success yet in stem cells. I join Senator Harkin in his statement that the only way you find out about evidence of success is by doing the research. But I want to read something I think is important and I am proud to share because research that has been done on BGO1 and 03--two of those three lines derived in this methodology--have had significant research conducted on them in a number of areas. This has a little bit of technical language, but it expresses the promise and the hope the Senator from Iowa and I and the Senator from Minnesota have all talked about. I quote:

The directed differentiation of BGO1 and BG03 cells to neuroepithelia and multiple differentiated neuronal lineages, including cells expressing multiple markers of the midbrain dopaminergic lineage, has previously been demonstrated.

``Previously been demonstrated.'' That statement was confirming the research on BG01 and 03, designed to see if there was a way to develop neurological cells that could carry the hope for cures to spinal cord injury and, in fact, to neurological cell or brain cell injury.

From the research on those three lines, a patent is now pending on a neurological progenitor cell process, which Is a real advancement from embryonic stem cell research, from embryonic stem cells derived from level III Gardner principle derivation or those derived from an arrested or a dead embryo.

So I would submit my passion for S. 30 is in the hope of finding cures, in the hope of avoiding a veto, and, instead, having an investment in the furtherance of science that can grow exponentially because of the unlimited moral and ethical access that would exist toward these stem cells.

I conclude by encouraging all the Members of the Senate to thoughtfully consider S. 30 and encourage them to vote for it as a step in the right direction, the opening of a door that has, in fact, not been shut but stuck, and an opportunity to do what everybody in this Chamber has stated affirmatively they want to do; that is, provide hope for those who do not have it, expand research in the public domain at the National Institutes of Health, and invest tax dollars ethically in a process that brings a promise of hope to every single American.

Mr. President, I yield back my time.

Source