CIRM
A colony of human embyronic stem cells (light blue) growing on fibroblasts (dark blue).
In March 2009, President Obama signed an executive order which removed President Bush’s stem cell policy and called on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to create new guidelines to expand federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research. Many advocates and scientists were more overjoyed than a pack of 12-year-old girls at the opening of the new Twilight movie — while those opposing the research were more dismayed than Taylor Swift getting Kanye’d at the MTV video music award. When the NIH released their guidelines in July 2009, both sides ended up disappointed.
What changed? The NIH now allows federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research regardless of the date the lines were created — a change from the Bush policy which set a date of August 9, 2001 (the date of Bush’s press conference discussing his policy). Both administrations required that the lines were created from leftover IVF eggs that were created for reproductive purposes and no longer needed. Both policies also required that adequate informed consent be documented, although the new NIH policy is stricter than the policy from the Bush administration.
How does this impact Texas? Many researchers may be able to get work federally funded on lines that were created after 2001. But with the stringent informed consent process required, there will be restrictions. An NIH committee will have the sole responsibility of determining the eligibility and documentation of previously created lines. Any research where an embryo was created for research purposes would also be ineligible.
Overall, the change in policy wasn’t as dramatic as the administration’s press office would like the public to think. It’s a small change which many scientists are still unhappy with, but accept because it allows enough good research to persist. It’s about like settling for a skateboard when you really want a Segway. It also has no impact on research, which is funded through state or private funds.
But it’s an expansion of human embryonic stem cell research, which made those opposing it disappointed — many taking their case to state legislators trying to ban human embryonic stem cell research one state at a time. This was the case last spring in the Texas legislature, where a bill would have banned the state funds and the use of state facilities for human embryonic stem cell research. Fortunately for our biomedical community — which brings in over $1 billion a year of federal funding alone to the state — the bill was not passed. But each session scientists worry about what will pass and how the state would recover from the impact of an anti-science bill. This is why we need to pass legislation that will support all stem cell research in the state and encourage our scientists to conduct the best biomedical research.
Kirstin Matthews is a fellow in science and technology policy at the Baker Institute. Her research focuses on the intersection between traditional biomedical research and public policy. Matthews’ current projects include the Baker Institute International Stem Cell Policy Program, the Civic Scientist Lecture Series and policy studies in research and development funding, genomics and climate change.