United States of America

The House of Representatives passed a bill on the 24th May 2005 to expand federal financing for embryonic stem cell research, defying a veto threat from President Bush. An identical bill has broad bipartisan support in the Senate. Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican and chief sponsor of a bill to expand federal financing for human embryonic stem cell research claims that they have enough votes to pass in the Senate.

The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 would ease current restrictions on federal funding for stem cell research by allowing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research on embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which they were derived from a human embryo. To address ethical concerns, the legislation requires the following provisions: stem cells must be derived from embryos donated from in vitro fertilisation clinics; the embryos would not be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded; and the individuals donating the embryos do so with written consent and receive no financial incentives. Currently, the bipartisan legislation has 195 cosponsors, according to the Juvenile Diabetes Association. Congressional leadership has promised bill sponsors that the measure will be brought to a floor vote this session.

HR-2520, the "Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005" was passed by virtually unanimous decision by the House of Representatives. This Bill amends the Public Health Service Act to establish a National Cord Blood Stem Cell Bank Network to prepare, store and distribute human umbilical cord blood stem cells for the treatment of patients and to support peer-reviewed research using such cells. This authorising legislation follows the initial $19.4 million appropriation to collect cryopreserved cord blood stem cell units with extended funding over five years.

The House action is the first vote on embryonic stem cell research since August 2001, when Mr. Bush opened the door to taxpayer financing for the studies, but only with strict limits. The new bill permits the government to pay for studies involving human embryos that are in frozen storage at fertility clinics, so long as couples conceiving the embryos certified that they had made a decision to discard them.

Advances in biomedical research has been met by a highly charged public debate of ethical questions regarding cloning and stem cell research. These discussions have been somewhat skewed by the strong moral and religious viewpoints of the various interest groups.

Leading researchers such as Prof. Doug Melton of Harvard, promote the need for embryonic stem cell research while acknowledging the ethical and religious issues. In their opinion the public discussion has been slanted and is based on misinformation and emotionally charged discussions, making it difficult to involve the general society which is believed to be an essential element of successful research. In this context the UK is often cited as an example on how to go about public discussions on science issues (i.e. the white paper approach).

A majority of Americans, 52 percent, oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research while just 36 percent support it, according to a May 2005 poll commissioned by the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

When respondents were told that scientists disagree on whether embryonic stem cells, or stem cells from adult tissues and umbilical cord blood, may end up being most successful in treating diseases, 60% favoured funding only the research avenues that raise no moral problem, while 22% favoured funding all stem cell research, "including the kind that involves destruction of embryos". President Bush claims that the recent vote in the House of Representative crosses an ethical line by creating new incentives for the "ongoing destruction of emerging human life". He says researchers are exploring alternative sources of stem cells, such as adult bone marrow and umbilical cord blood, as well as different ethical ways of getting the same kind of cells now taken from embryos without violating human life.

The National Academy of Science recently released a report on ethical guidelines for researches engaged in stem cell research. While not binding, some of the report's more than 50 recommendations include a call to stop payments to tissue donors and ways to ensure thorough record keeping. Some experts believe this document may have more significance in political rather than scientific circles and could make Congress more comfortable about funding future research using embryonic stem cells.

Funding for stem cell research in the USA comes from multiple sources and is not easy to quantify. Federal legislation allows federal funding only for 'approved' human embryonic stem cell lines. Consequently a significant amount of research is either funded privately, or is funded through (proposed) state legislation. It is important to note that federal legislation does not explicitly forbid any research, just not fund it. For the fiscal year 2003 NIH spent $517 million for all stem cell research with $20 million on human embryonic stem cell. Numbers for 2004 are not available yet.

State level funding for stem cell research varies tremendously; from California where Proposition 71 provides for $3 billion, or approximately $295 million per year, over the next 10 years and covering both human embryonic stem cell and adult stem cells, to states like Alabama that are considering outright bans on any kind of stem cell research.

While some of the proposed funding amounts are impressive, it is in some cases unclear where the funds would actually be coming from. For example in New York, NYAMR (New Yorkers for the Advancement of Medical Research), a coalition of New York State-based disease advocacy groups, university research centres and biotech industry leaders is pressuring the Governor and NY Assembly to include $100 million per year for 10 years for human embryonic stem cell research to the NY state budget - so far this has not occurred due to monetary constraints on the state budget.

New Jersey, who was the second state to legalise stem cell research announced a $380 million investment to build the Stem Cell Institute of New Jersey ($150 million) and to finance promising stem cell research ($230 million). However so far NJ has only earmarked $11.5 million for the Stem Cell Institute, with the FY 05 State Budget including $9.5 million for the Institute, as well as $1 million each from UMDNJ and Rutgers.

Private research funding for stem cell research is hard to quantify, but it is estimated that private funding quite easily outpaces federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research - though not necessarily so for adult stem cell research. Priorities of privately funded stem cell research normally align with the priority of the funding body and are consequently quite diverse.

While still being the foremost country in biological and medical research there is concern among leading stem cell scientists that the US is slipping behind in stem cell research compared to other countries that 'get it'. These countries are seen as the UK, Korea, Singapore, Sweden, Israel, Australia, and China.

The refusal of the federal government to change its position on stem cell research eligible for federal funding has lead to individual states stepping in and trying to fill the funding void. For the first time individual states have taken action to fund an area of research than would generally be funded in the federal domain.

While the efforts of individual states to fund embryonic stem cell research are generally seen by the scientific community as a step in the right directions, there have also been words of caution. For example the creation of state research panels to judge research merit without being able to weigh them against projects proposed in other states, could leave these state-level projects vulnerable to influence by special-interest groups and dedication of public funds to a narrow cause. This concern is echoed by some leading stem cell researchers such as Prof. Doug Melton from Harvard, who cautions strongly that it should not be left to individual states to be in charge of medical research but rather that the federal system needs to be fixed.

It will remain to be seen if the various state initiatives will lead to a brain drain from states with less funding, or will result in a more collaborative environment between states with favourable legislation for stem cell research.

The UK is generally perceived as a key partner of choice with both a sound regulatory environment and government support for stem cell research. However there has been some critique from US industry describing the UK regulatory process for stem cell research as 'tedious' and 'lengthy'.

While the UK's academic and regulatory environment is seen favourable within the US stem cell community, for the most part funding considerations might prevent the attraction of top US researchers to the UK. Researches in the US are generally very well funded and comparable packages in the UK are difficult to obtain.

Individual US states working to create attractive stem cell policies and initiatives in competition to California might be a valuable target for UK regions or groups to partner with. The general perception of the UK as a stem cell friendly environment can only be an advantage for potential efforts. Recent stem cell missions and planned conferences will continue to engage key US researchers and policy makers with their UK counterparts. However with the Federal government recently appearing to be moving towards a more conducive environment for stem cell research the Window for selling UK as desirable location for stem cell research may at some point close.

Overview of individual US states:

• Alabama
• Arizona
• Arkansas
• California
• Connecticut
• Delaware
• Florida
• Georgia
• Illinois
• Maryland
• Massachusetts
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• Nebraska
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey
• New York
• North Carolina
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Utah
• Virginia
• Washington
• Wisconsin

Top

copyright: © | last updated 24 November 2005