Defending Life 2008
Table of Contents
Working for Cures, Not Clones:
An Overview of Cloning and Stem Cell Research
By Daniel S. McConchie
Vice President & Executive Director, American United for Life
On Wednesday, July 19, 2006, President George W. Bush stood before a standing-room only crowd in the East Room of the White House and declared that he had vetoed legislation that would have expanded federal funding for destructive human embryo research. It was the first veto of his five-and-a-half-year Presidency.
Behind the President, a father stood holding his widely-grinning 14-month-old son, Trey Jones. As the President spoke about the moral danger of destroying nascent human life for research, the toddler called out to the crowd, “Hey…HEY!” Upon getting the attention of much of the front section of the room, Trey smiled widely and gave a big wave. The crowd laughed approvingly.
Trey and his father had been joined by dozens of other families with small children—children who likewise had no idea that they were in the presence of one of the most powerful people in the world. Dressed in miniature suits and evening gowns, the children grew restless during the 15-minute speech: quietly climbing up and down from their chairs, going from one parent’s arms to the other, and whispering very important observations to siblings and grandparents.
The one unusual thing about each of the children is that they were all formerly so-called “surplus” or “left-over” embryos—like those embryos that scientists use for destructive embryo research, including embryonic stem-cell research. Called “Snowflakes” after the adoption agency program that puts frozen embryos and adoptive parents together, these children were present to demonstrate that embryos are not just clumps of cells but living human beings. As the President said in his speech, “These boys and girls are not spare parts. They remind us of what is lost when embryos are destroyed in the name of research.”1
Currently, the only way to do embryonic stem-cell research and human cloning is to destroy living human embryos. The debate is becoming increasingly emotional and highly charged, as scientists interested in the research continue to diminish the moral concerns associated with embryo destruction and hype the potential benefits of such research.
ISSUES
In 1998, embryonic stem cells were isolated from human embryos for the first time. 2 Scientists performing the research hoped that these unspecialized cells might be used to cure currently incurable diseases, such as Parkinson’s, juvenile diabetes, cancers, anemias, and others. While scientists had been working with adult stem cells for more than 50 years, their success was seen as limited. There were still many diseases scientists hoped to be able to treat with this new stem cell source. The race to find a way to use embryonic stem cells commenced as scientists hailed that a virtual “fountain of youth” was waiting for us just around the corner.
Obtaining embryonic stem cells requires the destruction of a living human embryo. It is done by taking a days-old embryo that has grown to the several hundred-cell stage, breaking it apart, and taking the cells from the embryo’s inner mass.3 These unspecialized cells are then taken, grown, and used for research.
One of the inherent problems in using embryonic stem cells in therapies is the problem of transplantation. If a transplanted cell’s DNA is even minorly different from the person’s being treated, the body usually sees those cells as an invader and kills them off—much like what happens when whole-organ transplants are rejected due to an immune system response. Without the use of drugs to depress the patient’s immune system, transplanted tissue generally doesn’t survive but a few hours or days.
To overcome this inherent problem, scientists began pursuing human cloning as a method for obtaining genetically-compatible cells for transplantation. Cloning-for-research, also referred to as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) and therapeutic cloning,4 is a process through which a human egg is taken from a woman, the nucleus removed, and replaced with a nucleus from a patient’s body cell. Using electrical shock or chemical bath, the egg is tricked into believing it has been fertilized, and it begins to divide, becoming a human embryo.
With only the proper nutrition and environment, an embryo will develop into you or me. Researchers looking for embryonic stem cells interrupt the developmental process after several days to destroy the embryo and obtain its stem cells. When using cloned embryos, those cells are genetically identical to someone else. Some scientists claim that they are trying to produce cloned children by creating cloned embryos and then transferring the embryo into a woman’s uterus—a process often referred to as “reproductive cloning.” In addition to horrible genetic problems that currently plague animal clones, there are a whole host of ethical reasons that “reproductive cloning” should never be allowed.
Eight years after the first isolation of embryonic stem cells, there is not a single disease that these cells can cure, regardless of whether the cells obtained from embryos are created through sperm or egg or through cloning. Scientists have been conducting research on mouse embryonic stem cells for 25 years and are yet unable to cure mice.6 Research on humans that necessitates destroying human embryos would be repugnant even if it led to cures. However, such research on humans is even more unseemly given the fact that this research has rarely (and never consistently) worked in animals.
In addition to the fact that it is necessary to destroy nascent human life to obtain embryonic stem cells for research, such research is also immoral because the only way to obtain the human eggs necessary to create embryos is to exploit women. A woman normally only ovulates one or two eggs per reproductive cycle. To obtain enough eggs for research, a woman must take drugs that will cause her to superovulate, releasing 10-15 eggs at a time, and undergo an invasive surgical procedure in order to obtain them.7 It is simply not possible to obtain enough eggs from willing women to adequately pursue this research or treat possible diseases that may come from any breakthroughs using embryonic stem cells.8 Some scientists have discussed trying to use eggs from aborted fetuses or to create eggs from stem cells to alleviate this problem.9
There are efforts to find ways to obtain embryonic stem cells without destroying nascent human life.10 Success in such efforts is uncertain and may be years away.
The primary alternative to embryonic stem cells is using adult stem cells. Adult stem cells have helped patients with over 70 different diseases, with more being continually added.11 The future of human cures is not in destroying some humans to treat others. It is in ethical treatments that respect all human life with dignity and respect.
For legislators and policy makers, it is vitally important that proposed bans on destructive embryo research and cloning do not block important ethical avenues for researchers to pursue. In addition, careful measures should be taken to avoid bans on some types of research, especially in the area of cloning, that are essentially toothless or create incentives for researchers to destroy nascent human life. Simply, careful wording of legislative measures and statutes is very important.
KEY TERMS
- Adult stem cell—semi-specialized cells that create the end-stage cells that do the work of the body. Present throughout life, they continually work to replace dying end-stage cells. There are no ethical difficulties associated with using these cells as there are with embryonic stem cells. Sometimes referred to as “multipotent stem cells,” more than 70 different diseases have been treated with these cells.12
- Cloning—the creation, by whatever technique, of an entity genetically identical to another entity already in existence. Through cloning, the new entity has only one genetic parent, not two as in normal reproduction.
- Cord blood stem cell—an adult stem cell found in the umbilical cord blood of newborn infants. Umbilical cords, which are routinely discarded, were discovered to have an unusually high concentration of adult stem cells which are very easy to obtain and are capable of treating a host of diseases.13 In 2006, Congress passed legislation that will create a national umbilical cord blood bank similar to the national bone marrow system for the public.
- Embryo—an entity that, through whatever means (normal reproduction, cloning, or other method), has a full complement of DNA and, with the proper environment and nutrition and unless otherwise interrupted, will develop along the natural course of progression for that species into further stages of development until natural death.
- Embryonic stem cell—an early-stage stem cell that can (currently) only be obtained by destroying embryos of the same species. Embryonic stem cells can become virtually any type of cell in the body, but only if properly directed in their development. This naturally happens in the organized human embryo, but is something that scientists have yet to learn how to control. The primary ethical issues associated with using these cells is that they currently require the destruction of a living human embryo and that current use of such cells in medical research constitutes unethical experimentation when there has not been adequate research using animals. Sometimes referred to as “pluripotent stem cells,” there is not a single disease that scientists can treat with these cells.
- Somatic cell nuclear transfer—a type of cloning. A process in which the nucleus (and therefore the original DNA) is removed from an egg and discarded, the nucleus of a somatic (or body) cell containing the genetic material of another entity is transplanted into the egg, and an electric shock or chemical solution is used to trick the egg into believing it has been fertilized. The egg, containing another entity’s DNA, begins dividing as any other early embryo.
- Zygote—a one-cell embryo. From this one cell will arise every cell in the body. Sometimes referred to as a fertilized egg or “totipotent cell.”
TALKING POINTS
- The only way to obtain embryonic stem cells is to destroy human life. Currently, the only way to obtain embryonic stem cells is to break apart a living human embryo and take the cells from the embryo’s inner mass. While scientists think there may be other alternatives, no other method currently exists. ·
- Adult stem cells have benefited patients with more than 70 different diseases. There are not cures or treatments using embryonic stem cells. According to current scientific literature, adult stem cells have treated at least 26 different kinds of cancers, 15 different autoimmune diseases, 3 different neural degenerative diseases/injuries, 10 different anemias/blood conditions, and others. Embryonic stem cells have yet to cure a single human patient.14
- We’ve had mouse embryonic stem cells for 25 years. Where are the cures for mice? Mouse embryonic stem cells were first isolated in 1981.15 Other than a few isolated successes, research on mice has met continual failure. The promise by some scientists that cures for many incurable diseases are just around the corner using human embryonic stem cells is misleading at best. At worst, it is exploiting those who are suffering for political gain.
- While embryonic stem cells cannot heal, they can kill. Even at the current stage of research, embryonic stem cells can be deadly to recipients. In animal testing, embryonic stem cells cause a significant number of recipients to develop cancers.16 Using more developed fetal stem cells, a 52-year-old man died when the cells implanted in his brain became hair, cartilage and connective tissue.17 In another case, a group of patients with neural degenerative diseases with violent, uncontrollable shaking received fetal cell transplants into their brains. Rather than improving, 15-25% developed severe dyskinesia (worse shaking than they had before).18 This failure of more specialized fetal cells is an indicator of how much more difficult it likely will be to get less specialized embryonic stem cells to work.
- Even if we had an ethical source for embryonic stem cells, it would be unethical to use them in all but the sickest of patients. Given the spotty success of animal research using embryonic stem cells, treating human beings with such cells when they have not been proven in animal models constitutes unethical experimentation on human subjects. Such research is allowed on human subjects only when animal testing is not available or when the patient is so sick that experimental treatment is their only possibility of survival.
- Developing cures using living human embryos will prevent many sick people from utilizing the treatments. Given that embryonic stem cells are only available from destroying living human embryos, many people who have an ethical opposition to their involvement in such activity would necessarily exclude themselves from such treatments. Money and effort—especially taxpayer money—should go to those research avenues where success would benefit the greatest number of afflicted patients.
- Human cloning is not necessary for stem cell research to go forward. Many adult stem-cell therapies use a patient’s own cells, removing the possibility of tissue rejection. Those who cannot use their own cells can often get cells transplanted from a relative who has a compatible tissue type. Adult stem-cell research does not require human cloning for any reason. If a state wants to pursue embryonic stem-cell research, there are other ways of doing it without needing to clone human embryos.
- Attempts to ban only reproductive cloning are not enforceable. The only way to enforce a ban on cloning-to-produce-children is to mandate a woman carrying a cloned child to abort the child. In Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court (USSC) recognized a woman’s right over her own body. Under Roe, no court can require a woman to abort a cloned child. It is also unlikely that the public would support enforcement of a law that requires forced abortion.
FACTS & MYTHS
Myth: Embryonic stem-cell researchers are close to finding cures for a host of terrible diseases like cancer, diabetes, and neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s.
Fact: Embryonic stem cells are unable to cure anyone of anything. Instead, use of the cells in humans does little good and can do great harm. Adult stem-cell research is helping cure more than 70 diseases, with more work being prepared for or currently in clinical trials.
Myth: Embryonic stem-cell research, including the destruction of embryos for their parts, is morally and ethically acceptable.
Fact: Even if breakthroughs using embryonic stem cells do occur, it is still unethical to destroy human embryos for their parts. Regardless of the perceived or real benefit to destroying human embryos, there is no ethical justification for destroying nascent human life regardless of its origins. It is never right to intentionally kill innocent human life to save another’s life, especially in such a systematic manner.
Myth: Cloned human embryos are not really human.
Fact: This would mean that Dolly, the first mammal clone ever, was not a sheep, despite the fact it was created using a sheep egg and sheep DNA and after birth looked and acted like a sheep. If cloned human embryos are not human, then what are they? The only logical answer is that a cloned human embryo with a full compliment of human DNA is fully human.
Myth: We don’t owe a right to life to cloned embryos. They are an unnatural aberration.
Fact: Regardless of the ethical issues surrounding the creation of human clones or why a clone was created, if created it should not be forbidden to live. We do not require the destruction of human life when created through other unethical means (e.g., rape). Laws against creating cloned embryos should not require the clone’s destruction.
Myth: Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is not cloning.
Fact: SCNT is currently the only way to do a cloning procedure. While other methods may develop, SCNT will always be a form of cloning.
Myth: A ban on destructive human embryo research or human cloning will stifle scientific research or economic development in my state.
Fact: Few companies even do this research, in part because there are no foreseeable cures that will recoup the dollars needed for investment. And, if embryonic stem-cell research ends up not producing cures, companies may not survive in the state long enough to produce any benefit.
Myth: Embryos left over from in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures are just going to die anyway. We should get some benefit from them.
Fact: It is not necessarily the case that embryos left over from IVF procedures will be destroyed. Some parents change their mind and decide to implant the embryos to give them a chance at survival. Increasingly, infertile couples are adopting embryos that would otherwise be destroyed or languish in cryopreservation. Even if these embryos would be destroyed, it does not give us the right to use them for research material.
Myth: You cannot compare a clump of cells smaller than the tip of pencil to an existing human being who is suffering and may die without this research.
Fact: It is not your size or location that gives you value and dignity, it is your status as a member of the human race. Every human being, whether as small as the tip of a pencil or as large as a sumo wrestler, deserves the protections accorded to all other human beings. If we decide that some members of the human race should not receive those protections, then we are all at risk if the rich, powerful, or simple majority decides some of us are no longer worthy of life.
Myth: Adult stem cells are not as capable as embryonic stem cells.
Fact: While it is generally agreed that embryonic stem cells are more flexible in becoming different tissue types than adult stem cells, the idea that adult cells are not as capable as embryonic cells for use in treatments is pure speculation. Currently, adult cells are much more capable of treating human beings than embryonic cells which have yet to cure a single disease.
Myth: All stem cell research is unethical.
Fact: Only stem cell research that destroys human life or puts people unnecessarily in harm’s way when doing experimental research is unethical. The vast majority of scientific research being done on stem cells is perfectly legitimate.
State of the States:
Where Are We Now?
CURRENT LAW
Federal Law: There is no federal law barring human cloning or destructive human embryo research. In 2001, President George W. Bush expanded federal funding to cover only those embryonic stem-cell lines created before his pronouncement.
On July 19, 2006, President George W. Bush vetoed legislation that would have expanded the numbers of lines that can be paid for using federal tax dollars. An attempted override of that veto failed in the House on the same day. The President did sign into law The Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of 2006, which prohibits the solicitation or acceptance of tissue from fetuses gestated for research purposes.
Further, on June 20, 2007, the President vetoed legislation that would have required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date that the stem cells were derived. Again, Congress failed to override the veto.
State Laws: Given the complexity of these issues, there are a variety of laws in the states.
Here is a general overview:
- Six states ban human cloning for any purpose, both cloning-to-produce-children and cloning-for-research: Arkansas, Indiana, Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Virginia.
o Of these six states, Michigan and South Dakota also ban destructive human embryo research on cloned and IVF-created embryos.
- Five states have no specific law on human cloning, but have statutes that either expressly or implicitly ban destructive human embryo research on IVF-created embryos and possibly on cloned human embryos: Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania.
-
Twenty states ban so-called “fetal experimentation:” Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. However, four federal courts have invalidated “fetal experimentation” statutes as unconstitutional.
-
At least 13 states promote or encourage the use of umbilical cord cells and/or other forms of adult stem cells for research: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
- Seven states allow human cloning for destructive human embryo research (cloning-for-biomedical-research) but prohibit attempting to bring a cloned child to term (cloning-to-produce-children): California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Missouri’s law is codified by constitutional amendment.
- Rhode Island also bans so-called “reproductive cloning.”
- New Jersey permits destructive experimentation on both cloned human embryos and cloned human fetuses up to live birth.
- At least seven states use state tax dollars to fund destructive human embryo research: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Wisconsin. Florida has authorized $30 million in funding for its Biomedical Research Trust Fund, but the implications of that funding are unclear.
-
Conversely, only a handful of states, such as Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, and Virginia, restrict funding for human cloning and/or destructive embryo research.
-
Virginia allows tax incentives for ESCR by providing that research equipment (including equipment used for ESCR) would not be taxed. Conversely, the state also prohibits loans for entities conducting ESCR.
What Happened In 2007
Approximately 120 measures were considered in 32 states relating to cloning, destructive embryo research, and/or ethical alternatives to destructive research, such as research using adult stem cells or umbilical cord blood. This reflects a drop of approximately 50 percent from 2006. Anti-life measures, such as measures funding destructive embryo research, continued to significantly outpace life-affirming measures, as they did in 2005 and 2006.
This area is becoming increasingly difficult to accurately track, and individual measures are becoming harder to categorize, as many include both life-affirming and destructive components. Some state measures were combination bills dealing with both cloning and stem cell research. Those banning reproductive cloning typically simultaneously provide for so-called “therapeutic cloning” (or cloning–for-biomedical-research) and/or destructive embryo research. A smaller number of bills prohibited all forms of human cloning and/or encouraged alternate sources of stem cells such as placentas, cord blood, or adult stem cells.
A. Constitutional Amendments: Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas considered constitutional amendments. Missouri’s amendment sought to prohibit human cloning; Oklahoma’s amendment would have authorized any form of stem cell research permitted under federal law and would have prohibited cloning-to-produce-children; Texas’s amendment would have prohibited cloning-to-produce-children in state institutions of higher education.
B. Human Cloning: Two states—Illinois and Iowa—enacted legislation involving human cloning. Both laws prohibit cloning-to-produce-children but allow cloning-for-research (as well as destructive embryo research).
At least 18 other states considered measures related to human cloning: Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, and Texas. Primarily, these measures sought to ban or restrict funding for human cloning.
C. Destructive Embryo Research (DER)/Embryonic Stem-Cell Research (ESCR):
Overall, bills promoting or funding ESCR far outpaced measures designed to restrict the process.
Illinois created the Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning Prohibition Act, which permits research involving human embryonic stem cells, germ cells, and human adult stem cells from somatic cell nuclear transplantation. It also allows public funding for stem cell research programs.
Iowa enacted the Iowa Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative, a measure permitting embryonic stem-cell research.
Nebraska enacted a measure prohibiting monies from a state-supported biomedical research fund from being used for research on fetal tissue obtained from induced abortions or for research using embryonic stem cells.
New Jersey enacted a measure allocating $5.5 million for embryonic stem-cell research.
New York enacted a measure establishing an institute to disburse state monies for embryonic stem-cell research. However, no funds can be used for human reproductive cloning.
All in all, at least 34 states considered measures permitting or otherwise promoting destructive and immoral research, including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Washington.
Conversely, only a handful of states considered bans on destructive embryo research or other measures discouraging the destruction of embryos, including Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, and New Jersey.
D. Ethical Alternatives to DER/ESCR: At least 11 states—California, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, and Oklahoma—considered measures promoting and/or funding ethical research alternatives, such as adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood.
Georgia created the Newborn Umbilical Cord Blood Bank for postnatal tissue and fluid.
New Jersey enacted legislation providing funding for stem cell research. While the funding appears to be aimed at destructive embryo research, it also includes the collection of umbilical cord blood to support stem cell research and related activities.
New York enacted a measure facilitating the donation of umbilical cord blood for stem cell collection, preservation, and storage for public or private use.
E. Chimeras: Only Maryland considered a ban on the creation of chimeras.
What To Do In 2008
Proposals to support
While action in this area has cooled somewhat from its frenzied high earlier this decade, it is still one of the busiest areas of life-related legislative activity. The introduction of anti-life measures are expected to continue to outpace life-affirming measures as corporate and research interests repeat attempts to expand tax breaks and direct taxpayer subsidies of destructive research.
Efforts to restrict state funding and tax breaks to biotech companies that will only do research that does not destroy or manipulate human life should continue to be actively pursued. When firms lobby for subsidies, pro-life lawmakers and organizations should exploit their vulnerable position to gain life-affirming concessions from the companies.
In general, only those laws that ban all human cloning are acceptable, as other partial bans generally are considered “toothless” or even create incentives for researchers to destroy human life.
We are hopeful that several states will consider bans on destructive embryo research. While being more comprehensive, these bans can be easier to pass in some states than mere bans on human cloning. Since cloning is highly politicized, with scientists and state universities more than willing to line up at legislature committee microphones to claim the sky will fall if such a ban is passed, it can be more difficult for them to oppose a measure simply banning the destruction of living human embryos for whatever purpose regardless of the way they were created. This has the benefit of covering any type of embryos, not just cloned embryos. It does leave open the issue of reproductive cloning, but this can generally be easily addressed later in a separate bill, as few people will oppose such a reproductive cloning-only ban.
Proposals to oppose
Many states will likely again consider bans on reproductive cloning that continue to allow research or therapeutic cloning. Such legislative efforts are generally shams to make the public believe that cloning is being outlawed when in fact it is not. Bans on reproductive cloning, where people would be prohibited from attempting to bring a clone to birth, do two things. First, they require the destruction of human life. If you can create cloned embryos but not bring them to term, you can only cryopreserve them forever or destroy them. Second, such bans are unenforceable, as Roe v. Wade guaranteed a woman’s right to privacy over her own body. This means that no court can enforce a state law that would require a woman to abort a cloned child.
Proposal for tax breaks and direct state funding of embryonic stem-cell research and/or human cloning may be a hot topic in light of the Missouri ballot initiative win in 2006. Such proposals force every taxpayer to participate in the destruction of human life through their tax dollars. Nothing as morally contentious as killing innocent human life in the name of research should be forced upon every citizen of any state.
Endnotes
1 George W. Bush, President Discusses Stem Cell Research Policy, available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060719-3.html (last visited Aug. 29, 2007).
2 Michael J. Schlambott et. al., Derivation of pluripotent stem cells from cultured human primordial germ cells, Proc. Nat’l Acad. Sci. USA 95:23, 13726-731 (1998).
3 Id.
4 The term “therapeutic cloning” is often used by proponents to convey the idea that cloning for research has medical or therapeutic benefit. In reality, cloning research does not have any therapeutic benefits to patients. Additionally, research cloning is decidedly non-therapeutic to the clone whom must be killed for the research.
5 The term “reproductive cloning” is often used to denote cloning with the intention of creating a born child. However, since all cloning processes create a new entity at the embryonic stage, it is a misnomer to only classify certain types of cloning as reproductive.
6 M. J. Evans & M. H. Kaufman, Establishment in culture of pluripotential cells from mouse embryos, Nature 292, 154–56 (1981).
7 Antonio Regalado, Stem-Cell Rift Shows Difficulty Obtaining Eggs, Wall Street Journal, available at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113193183444296112.html (last visited Aug. 29, 2007).
8 David Prentice, Under the Microscope: A Scientific Look at Cloning, Family Policy 15:3, available at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA03I10 (last visited Aug. 29, 2007).
9 Eric Cohen, Orphans by Design, First Things 158, 13-15 (2005).
10 To see the current ways the National Institutes of Health are investigating alternative ways of obtaining embryonic stem cells, see James F. Battey, Alternative Methods of Obtaining Embryonic Stem Cells, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, July 14, 2005, available at: http://stemcells.nih.gov/policy/statements/20050712battey.asp (last visited Aug. 29, 2007).
11 To see a current list of benefits of both embryonic and adult stem cells in patients, visit http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm (last visited Aug. 29. 2007).
12 Id.
13 A great summary of the benefits of umbilical cord blood can be found in Sec. 2. Findings of the Cord Blood Stem Cell Act of 2003, available at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h596ih.txt.pdf (last visited Aug. 29, 2007).
14 See supra n.11.
15 Evans & Kaufman, supra n.6.
16 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Practical Problems with Embryonic Stem Cells, available at: http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/stemcell/obstacles51004.shtml (last visited Aug. 29, 2007).
17 R. Folkerth & R. Durso, Survival and Proliferation of Nonneural Tissues, with Obstruction of Cerebral Ventricles, in a Parkinsonian Patient Treated with Fetal Allografts, Neurology 46: 1219-25 (1996).
18 Curt R. Freed et al., Transplantation of Embryonic Dopamine Neurons for Severe Parkinson’s Disease, N. E. J. Med. 344: 710-19 (2001); C.W. Olanow et al., A Double-Blind Controlled Trial of Bilateral Fetal Nigral Transplantation in Parkinson’s Disease, Ann. Neurol. 54(3): 403–14 (2003).
