Copyright 2001 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
December 4, 2001, Tuesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 905 words
COMMITTEE:
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS
SUBCOMMITTEE:
LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, EDUCATION
HEADLINE:
CLONING
TESTIMONY-BY: BERT VOGELSTEIN, M.D., CHAIRMAN,
BIOLOGICAL AND BIOMEDICAL APPLICATIONS OF STEM
AFFILIATION: CELL RESEARCH COMMITTEE
BODY: Implications of Cloning Legislation on
Potential Stem Cell-Based Therapies
Statement of
Bert
Vogelstein, M.D. Chairman, Biological and Biomedical Applications of Stem Cell
Research Committee National Research Council and Institute of Medicine Professor
of Oncology and Pathology Johns Hopkins Oncology Center and the Howard Hughes
Medical Institute
Concerning the Differences Between Cloning Human
Beings and Nuclear Transplantation
Before the Subcommittee on Labor,
Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Committee on
Appropriations U.S. Senate
December 4, 2001
Good morning, Mr.
Chairman, and members of the Committee. My name is Bert Vogelstein, and I am a
Professor of Oncology and Pathology at the John Hopkins Oncology Center and a
Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator. I am here today as the chairman of
a National Research Council and Institute of Medicine Committee on the
Biological and Biomedical Applications of Stem Cell Research that recently
released the report Stem Cells and the Future of Regenerative Medicine. My goal
today is to clarify some of the confusion surrounding two very different medical
endeavors; the first is regenerative medicine, and the second is the cloning of
a human being. Regenerative medicine, which as a field is in its infancy,
involves growing cells and tissues for implantation in people with diseases or
injuries to their organs, for example diabetes, Parkinson's disease, heart
disease, and spinal chord injury. The most promising avenue of regenerative
medicine is the use of embryonic stem cells for eveloping tissues of many
different types for transplantation into patients with these diseases or
injuries.
A substantial obstacle to the success of transplantation of
any cells, including stem cells and their derivatives, is the immune reaction of
a patient's body to cells that it perceives as foreign. Our report recommended
that multiple approaches to reducing this problem be explored, including ways to
manipulate the genetic makeup of the stem cell tissue to make it less likely to
provoke an immune reaction, the creation of a large bank of diverse stem cell
lines, and the development of embryonic stem cells using a technique known as
somatic cell nuclear transfer. This involves taking the DNA from a cell of a
patient in need of a transplant, inserting it into an egg cell that has had its
nucleus removed, and triggering cell division. The resulting stern cells and
tissue that can be obtained from this procedure would be genetically identical
to the patient's cells, and would in theory not be rejected by the patient's
immune system when transplanted into him or her.
This procedure for
producing embryonic stem cells that are genetically identical to the donor's
tissue should not be confused with
human cloning, which has the
goal of creating a human being. In that endeavor, the DNA from the cell of an
individual would be inserted into an egg cell that has had its nucleus removed,
and that embryo would be implanted into a woman's uterus so that it would grow
into a child who is genetically identical to the individual whose DNA was
inserted into the egg.
Unfortunately, the notion that genetically
identical stem cells are the same as a genetically identical human being has
obfuscated the important potential of developing transplant therapies with lower
probabilities for rejection, and greater chance of helping improve the health of
many sorts of patients.
There has been much confusion surrounding the
terminology common to the causes of both regenerative medicine and those who
wish to clone human beings. Because the term "therapeutic cloning" has been used
by different sources to mean both the cloning of human beings and the production
of embryonic stem cells genetically identical to their donor, it has become
effectively useless. And because the term "somatic cell nuclear transfer" smells
of scientific jargon, I propose the use of the term "nuclear transplantation" be
entered into the debate over cloning legislation.
I urge lawmakers to
deeply consider the differences between nuclear transplantation and
human cloning, and to consider the enormous impact on clinical
research, and indeed patients' lives, if a ban on nuclear transplantation were
to be enacted. President Bush's announcement last August to allow federal
funding for research on existing embryonic stem cell lines was a great step in
the direction toward realizing the promise of stem cells in regenerative
medicine. To ban nuclear transplantation would be a step backwards in this
effort.
Our committee is respectful of the wide array of social,
political, legal, ethical, and economic issues that must be considered in
policy-making in a democracy, and we have been impressed by the commitment of
all parties in this debate to life and health, regardless of the different
conclusions they draw. It should be recognized that a large number of citizens
oppose
human cloning at the same time they support embryonic
stem cell research and regenerative medicine. We hope our report, by clarifying
what is known about stem cells and how best to realize their potential, will be
a useful contribution to the discussion of this important issue.
Thank
you for this opportunity to testify. I would like my statement to be put into
the record, and I will be happy to answer any questions the Committee might
have.
LOAD-DATE: December 5, 2001