Today is National Day of Service and, to commemorate the profound words of Dr. Martin Luther King, we at The Brooke Ellison Project ask “Life’s most persistent and urgent question is: What are you doing for others?”  In reflecting on these words, we hope that you will take a moment to make a potentially life-saving donation to help the grief stricken people of Haiti.

We have provided you with a number of links to organizations doing critical work in Haiti.  We, at The Brooke Ellison Project, understand how lives change without warning.  What we cannot imagine is the devastation, despair, and suffering Haiti is experiencing right now.  Please, take a minute to support the work that’s being done, alleviate some of the unimaginable suffering, and create hope for those who need it so desperately.

THE AMERICAN RED CROSS
http://american.redcross.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ntld_main

UNICEF
http://www.unicef.org/

Operation USA
http://www.opusa.org/

International Medical Corps
http://www.imcworldwide.org/Page.aspx?pid=183

Partners in Health
http://www.standwithhaiti.org/haiti

Handicap International
http://www.handicap-international.us/

Over the past few days, the ultraconservative, pro-life organizations, LifeNews and the Family Research Council, have released several articles that, true to form, attack the need and purpose of embryonic stem cell research.  These organizations release their highly suspect and manipulative musings on a fairly regular basis, most of which are worthy of being ignored, however the past two articles were so misleading and so devoid of fact that I felt there was no choice but to set the record straight.  I will address both of these articles individually, because the research— and researchers who conduct it – deserves at least that much.

On Wednesday, Dec. 30^th, LifeNews attempted to manipulate the words of Harvard stem cell researcher, Len Zon, in an article entitled, “Scientists: Embryonic Stem Cell Research Showing Little Progress 28 Years Later”.  One needs to go no further than the title to understand the purpose of the article, which claims that embryonic stem cell research has not made strides and should, therefore, be abandoned.  As a means to make this dubious claim, the organization “quotes” an NPR interview with Dr. Zon on the evolution of embryonic research over the past decade.

LifeNews’ piece is an exercise in inaccuracy and intellectual dishonesty.  First and foremost, embryonic stem cell research – that is, human embryonic stem cell research – had its inception in 1998, with Dr. James Thomson’s first successful derivation of a human embryonic stem cell line.  Unless LifeNews is relying on some alternative math, this is a bit over 11 years, not 28 years.  What this organization fails to acknowledge is that, of the 11 years since human embryonic stem cell research has been in existence, 8 of these years were dominated by the anti-science and restrictive Bush administration.  During this time, work was severely limited and researchers were unprecedentedly hamstrung, though progress was made due to researchers’ own ingenuity.  Two of the remaining three years were immediately following the first embryonic stem cell line derivation, when the field was in its absolute infancy.  The “28 Years Later” claim is subverted in the title of the very NPR interview that LifeNews is supposedly making reference to, “Reflecting On a Decade of Stem Cell Research”. A decade.  As in 10 years.

The LifeNews article goes on to argue that work done on induced pluripotent stem (ips) cells, which are derived from non-embryonic cells that have been reprogrammed to exhibit embryonic-like characteristics, is the way to go.  There is no doubt that this line of research is both very promising and very exciting, however it is not the panacea that pro-life organizations like LifeNews proclaim it to be.  Whether resulting from ignorance or abject dishonesty, LifeNews fail to acknowledge that work on ips cells is only the result of years of embryonic research – the very same research they previously claimed has never amounted to anything.  They also failed to mention that embryonic research is absolutely essential to understand the complexities of reprogramming, and that researchers can only gather information about embryonic-like states by studying embryonic cells.  They also fail to understand that ips research is in its very earliest stages – having its origins only in 2007 – and there are enormous questions still surrounding it.  Ask stem cell researchers, for instance those who specialize in ips research, and they will corroborate the fact that embryonic research is still necessary and not obviated by other lines of work.

And, this brings us to the article by The Family Research Council written just yesterday, entitled “Targeting Minority Embryos”.  This posting makes the argument that stem cell researchers are actively “targeting”, or as the article states “stalking minority couples” to derive new stem cell lines.  This egregious claim addresses – yet severely manipulates – the study published in The New England Journal Of Medicine which suggested that a majority of existing stem cell lines lack genetic diversity, as they were derived from embryos from upper-middle-class white couples.

The devious work of the Family Research Council has taken an effort to maximize distributive justice and turned it completely on its head.  Given that many of the existing stem cell lines were derived from supernumerary embryos from IVF clinics, and those seeking IVF treatment are disproportionately upper middle-class white couples, this demographic has been overrepresented in stem cell lines.  One of the leading reasons for the derivation of new stem cell lines is because of this very problem, that if researchers want to understand diseases that are overrepresented in minorities, such as sickle cell anemia, they need to study embryonic stem cell lines bearing these characteristics.  There is no “targeting”.  There is no “stalking” as the article so egregiously states.  There has been a call for greater genetic representation in materials of study so that everyone can benefit from the work that is being done.  To claim otherwise is not only deliberately untruthful but exceedingly disrespectful of the social benefit researchers work to provide.

Despite my well-documented belief in and advocacy for embryonic stem cell research, I am fully aware of the diversity of opinion surrounding it.  I understand that people view the research in different ways and the sensitivities people bring to the issue.  For this reason, I also understand that people will advocate for their respective causes.  However, while we can disagree on certain things, you can’t argue by fabricating or manipulating facts.  If organizations like LifeNews and The Family Research Council are that strong in their beliefs, they should be able to argue their point without reconstructing truth to fit those beliefs.  Until these organizations are ready to match fact with fact, they are simply undermining their own cause and weakening their own argument.

The Scientific Process: Slow and steady wins the race

Solomon Swartz

With the emergence of the digital age, stimulation from video gaming devices and immediacy of communication enabled by social utility tools like Facebook and text messaging has created an impulsiveness and impatience in today’s youth that has never before been seen in prior generations. The need for immediate gratification has proven to be disadvantageous to the public in a variety of ways, but most unfortunate is the shallowness of understanding of complex issues like scientific advancement. In the world of science research, things cannot always be explained in a tweet of 140 characters or less. Scientific advancements are not as simple as upgrading from DSL to FIOS (which for many, is already a complicated process in itself.) The majority of the non-scientific world has trouble grasping the concept that scientific research is an in-depth process, requiring in-depth discussion and long study hours to be fully understood.

Embryonic stem cell research and its progress is one example of a case in which scientific study has been terribly misrepresented in both the media and on the internet. Unrealistic standards are imposed onto researchers today, setting up the public for disappointment in the study.

Having worked in a Chemistry Lab for two years at Stony Brook University, I can cite first hand experience when I say that research cannot be handled with time tables. Both media sources that condone stem cell research and sources that condemn it rely on time to justify their arguments:

“In `X` years, advancement `A` will be ready to save lives!” from a hypothetical supporter

“It’s been 10 years, why haven’t embryonic stem cells produced cures?!” from a possible detractor

This severe miscalculation by the media is causing a confusion and frustration for many individuals who rely on the news for their facts about key issues.

“Where are the results?!”

“Why haven’t we seen any breakthroughs? We gave money, we’ve given time. I want an explanation!”

It’s true, although it’s been years since the start of embryonic stem cell investigation, very little has become commercially available. Research, however, is not a pop-tart, and just because you push the right button to warm up your breakfast, there isn’t a guarantee that breakfast will be ready when the timer beeps. Trial and error is the only way our acumen can increase and our potential be realized. The process is slow and the results are slower, but given more time and effort, substantial strides can be taken.

For every discovery made, there is an opportunity for a new experiment. With every new experiment conducted, a new avenue to further discovery is created. That cycle has been and always will be the path to greater human achievement. Embryonic stem cell research is still a young science. It has, however, made a variety of significant progresses in areas that although may not directly change the lives of those suffering from autosomal diseases or traumatic injury yet, do bring us closer to the research that will make a significant difference.

The following links direct the reader to some recent discoveries of ES cells:

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/11/6126.full

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2008/02/13/35188.aspx

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/4/2344.abstract

On July 5, the Newsday editorial board published its opinion on the Empire State Stem Cell Board’s recent decision to compensate women who willingly undergo the process of donating eggs for research.  While the opinion notes some important facts surrounding the stem cell board’s decision, including that providing compensation “is a reasonable step to promote important research that has been stalled for want of eggs”, the underlying argument of the opinion is highly troubling.  Specifically, the Newsday editorial board argued that a decision such as this one should not have been made by members of the Empire State Stem Cell Board but, instead, by the New York state legislature.  Speaking not only as a member of the Empire State Stem Cell Board’s Ethics Committee, but also as a former candidate for the New York State Senate, this argument implies a severe underappreciation of the work of the Board, as well as, an overestimation of the capacity of the New York Legislature.

By way of legislative history, the Empire State Stem Cell Board was established in April, 2007, under Public Health Law Article 2, Title 5A, as an entity under the New York State Department of Health.  The Board has been given the express charge of administering funds and developing ethical guidelines within which stem cell research can progress in New York State.  Board members, of which there are 26 serving voluntarily on one of two established committees (the Funding Committee and Ethics Committee), are all appointed by New York State elected officials: the majority and minority leaders in both houses of the Legislature, as well as, the Governor’s office.  Members of the Board were chosen for their expertise in the fields of stem cell research, advocacy, medicine, and ethics.  As a result of the variety of elected public officials, from both political parties, by whom members were each appointed, the Board reflects a diversity of opinions and representations of society.  Like most other public commissions that are established to complete specific and complex tasks, members of the Empire State Stem Cell Board were chosen democratically, but with attention given to their contribution to a specialized field.

The field of stem cell research is complex, and integrates many aspects of society that need to be discussed progressively and cohesively.  The nuances of such detailed avenues of public policy are often left in the hands of specialized public commissions, as there simply is not enough time or enough resources available to elected officials to perform these tasks themselves.  To do otherwise would be to create an insurmountable amount of inefficiency and backlog in government, and would overestimate the amount of knowledge our elected officials can be expected to have on any given topic.  In this very same context at the federal level, for example, President Obama brought together a body of experts under the NIH to draft guidelines for federally-funded stem cell research.  Congress did not write guidelines and, frankly, would not have had the time or information to do so.

The Newsday editorial board claimed that this complex decision, “shouldn’t be made and implemented quietly by experts… no matter how thoughtful, informed, and deliberate”.  But, aren’t the thoughtful, informed, and deliberate – without political agenda – precisely the people we would like to be making a decision like this?  When dealing with this level of nuance for the greater public good, does it not make sense to utilize the talents of those who know the most and can act without the constraints of an upcoming election?  Newsday argued that a decision, such as whether New York should provide reasonable and fair compensation to women undergoing donations of eggs to research, should be made by members of the New York state legislature, to “reflect the will, and the conscience, of the public”.  Such a claim is preposterous, if not comical, given the unprecedented dysfunction the New York State Legislature finds itself in right now.  There is little, if anything, that amounts to the public interest occurring in Albany at present, and the state Senate has not the will to take action on major bills pertinent to the public good, let alone a small component of a broader issue they already voted on two years ago.  As we have seen all too clearly, the New York State Legislature is the epitome of legislative inaction, and there is ample reason to believe that an issue such as this, if left in the hands of the Legislature, would never reach the floor for a vote and would languish in Committee ad infinitum.  Even more troubling, there would have likely been no testimony from stem cell experts, as has been standard Albany protocol for years.  Finally, as the Empire State Stem Cell Board voted on and passed this decision as one of many guidelines for research in New York, it is quite possible that, if the Legislature were making these decisions, some arbitrary issues would have reached the floor for a vote but not others.  Such a haphazard attention to detail is in no way a means to the public good, but instead, quite the opposite.

The Newsday editorial board entitled their opinion, “With Little Discussion, New York Crosses a Stem Cell Threshold”, a claim that is grossly misleading. The fact of the matter is that the issue of compensation to egg donors has been debated by board members for nearly two years, almost as long as the Board has been in existence.  Pursuant to this issue in particular, we have been provided with thousands of pages of literature and hours of testimony from experts and representatives of all sides.  All of our meetings, in accordance with the New York State Open Meetings Law, are open to the public and, for those who cannot attend, viewable online.  There is nothing that is done “quietly” or outside of full public view.  The intimation to the contrary is simply wrong.

The Empire State Stem Cell Board, and the legislation under which it was created, was voted on and passed by the New York State Legislature.  Board members are trustees of New York State elected officials, who in turn, are delegates of New York at large.  Legislation was democratically passed and, as a result, the Board fulfills its assigned duty of advancing stem cell research in New York.  The Empire State Stem Cell Board, working transparently and without agenda, is in the best position to make stem cell-related decisions for the good of New York.  Decisions like these are beyond the scope of the New York State Legislature, and we need expertise in order to make them properly.  The future of stem cell research in New York deserves no less.

On June 11th, the Empire State Stem Cell Board took a groundbreaking and extremely important step in the quest for scientific breakthroughs.  At a meeting that involved both of the two committees that comprise the Board, the Ethics Committee and the Funding Committee, it was voted that New York State would be the first public funding source to provide compensation for women who are so willing to donate eggs (oocytes) for research.  Before one can generate an opinion, either positively or negatively, on the necessity of this initiative, it is critical to understand the importance and rationale behind it.  I speak not on behalf of the Empire State Stem Cell Board but instead as a member of the Board toward which some criticism has been directed as result of our decision.

The issue of compensation for oocyte donation is one that the Ethics Committee of the Empire State Stem Cell Board has been debating in great detail since 2007.  We have reviewed all pertinent information, studies, and opinions, and all of them were integrated into discussions.  At the heart of these discussions, however, is the notion that, as a public entity, we have been assembled to facilitate science and promote the public good implicit in medical discoveries.  Without deciding to compensate egg donors, New York could not achieve either of these things adequately.

Stem cell research is multifaceted and multidisciplinary, involving different questions designed to reach different answers.  Important among these is the field of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), a critical avenue of stem cell research that allows researchers to replicate the genetic material from an ordinary body (somatic) cell-from, say, a skin cell of someone who battles diabetes – and introduce it into an unfertilized and unimplanted egg that has had its nucleus removed. From this process, researchers can generate embryonic stem cell lines that carry genetic information from the cell donor, allowing scientists to generate disease- and patient-specific stem cell lines.  What this means is that scientists can work towards potential therapies that would not cause immune rejections and can “replay” the development of diseased cells to see the problems that arise when disease strikes. Though this achievement has not been mastered in human cells, this area of investigation is essential to understanding disease development, to determining the efficacy of potential therapies, and to ensuring the progress of the medical field.  In fact, since somatic cell nuclear transfer involves the usage of unfertilized eggs, which are the largest cells in the human body, it provides an opportunity to conduct research that no other cell can provide. This line of research is arguably unparalleled in its promise for understanding disease development and to the field of regenerative medicine.

Important research, like somatic cell nuclear transfer and many other types, needs the availability of eggs in order for it to be conducted, and herein lies the basis of the Empire State Stem Cell Board’s decision. In order for the research that has been established in New York to take place, it needs the help of women willing to donate eggs, as there is no ready supply. Despite what some have argued to the contrary, it is unreasonable to expect women to undergo the process of donating eggs for research without fairly compensating them to do it.  For example, researchers at the Harvard Stem Cell Institute have tried for years to recruit women to donate eggs without compensation and, frustratingly, have only gotten one single volunteer.  The egg-donation process involves time and burden, however with minimal known risk, which has an extensive history of being compensated and, to do otherwise in this case, would be an exception to the standard practice of compensating participants who engage in research – including, of course, men who donate sperm for similar reasons. As has been written in the relevant literature, to do otherwise, in itself, would be exploitative of and arbitrarily punitive to women who genuinely want to contribute to science and medical progress.

Some, including a member of the Empire State Stem Cell Board Ethics Committee, have posed the criticism that compensating women for an oocyte donation would constitute an “undue inducement” and would entice poor women at a higher frequency to take part in a risky procedure.  Such a claim is both unfounded and paternalistic, as there is absolutely no data that suggest that women of a lower socioeconomic status are disproportionately represented in the egg-donor population.  Even if that were the case, women of reduced means ought to be given the choice to pursue something to reduce an economic hardship, provided they know any risk involved.  Further, it implies that women of limited means are not able to weigh considerations and make decisions for themselves when money is involved.  The fact of the matter is that women who typically donate eggs for research purposes do so out of a desire to participate in a social good, regardless of economic status.  This particular aspect of ethical guidelines surrounding stem cell research has been a veritable shroud that opponents of stem cell research have hidden behind, often claiming to be protecting women from exploitation when, in fact, they are simply attempting to prevent the research from moving forward. The fact that women in New York can be compensated without question for the very same procedure when undergoing egg donation for reproductive purposes only serves to strengthen that idea.

Despite the literature and data supporting the Empire State Stem Cell Board’s bold decision, there has been targeted criticism, some of which argues a particular perspective and most of which is inflammatory and uninformed.  Most of these comments serve only to fuel the very same ideological and misleading ideas that have maligned this research for years without justification or fact behind them. This has been detrimental to science. This has been detrimental to public understanding. And this has been detrimental to the cause to which we all have committed ourselves: finding treatments and cures to disease.

On April 19, the National Institutes of Health unveiled its draft guidelines for federal funding eligibility in the field of stem cell research. The NIH was given the charge of developing these guidelines by President Obama, as part of his executive order to relax restrictions theretofore imposed upon federal funding. In what was seen by countless stem cell researchers, activists, and organizations as the start of a new era in U.S. scientific history, President Obama was making a bold step to rectify eight years of science based on ideology rather than science based on science. However, in the NIH draft guidelines, it appears that an opportunity has been missed to make this bold step more than just rhetoric.

There are several components of the NIH draft stem cell guidelines that are particularly troubling for the future of this research and, as a result, the future of the quest for cures. Most notably among these is the limitation of funding to stem cell lines derived only from excess IVF embryos. This overly-onerous restriction eliminates the availability for funding for stem cell lines that are crucial to scientific understanding, including those stem cell lines that have already been created privately from non-IVF embryos since the 2001 federal limitations were put into place, are already in use by the scientific community, and are more representative of the genetic variation of the population, at large. These existing stem cell lines, many created at such progressive institutions as Harvard University and University of Wisconsin at Madison and have been derived using private or state funds, have helped to bridge much of the gap that was created as result of President Bush’s restrictions. A lack of federal support for these lines would be a disservice to scientific inquiry.

In addition to the lost opportunity borne out through a lack of federal funding for non-IVF stem cell lines, the restrictions imposed by the NIH draft guidelines would prohibit any opportunity for federally-funded somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). SCNT has shown itself to be an extremely valuable area of stem cell research, allowing for the possibility of embryonic stem cell lines that both disease-specific and patient-specific. If we are to hope for the development of actual treatments that can be used in vivo, SCNT must be pursued. If we are to hope for full appreciation of science within the United States, SCNT needs to be federally funded.

As the president and founder of THE BROOKE ELLISON PROJECT, a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing public education and advocacy for stem cell research, I offer the following policy recommendations for the NIH’s draft guidelines:

1. Allow federal funding for ALL existing stem cell lines, regardless of their origin, thereby grandfathering in lines that were created via non-IVF embryos
2. Allow federal funding for research on privately-derived stem cell lined moving forward, pursuant to the Dickey-Wicker Amendment as interpreted by the Clinton Administration.
3. Create a registry to catalog all federally approved stem cell lines.
4. Establish that donor consent need only be obtained once, and that consent need not be reobtained in cases where it is unreasonably difficult to do so.  Issues of consent should be in compliance with either ISSCR or NAS guidelines

Under the Obama administration, with strong democratic control of both houses of Congress, now is an opportunity of nearly unprecedented proportions to make great strides in this field. Similarly, as the NIH guidelines, once they have been solidified, will likely be the standing policy for quite some time, it behooves all of us to make them as comprehensive as possible. Under the current draft guidelines, that does not happen. These recommendations take us a bit farther, though not all the way, to reaching the goal we all hope to reach, funding cures for disease.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Yesterday, in front of a room full of legislators, scientists, experts, and advocates, President Obama overturned the unduly restrictive and hope-robbing stem cell research funding restrictions implemented by President Bush in 2001.  What a momentous day, signaling a return to science based on science, rather than science based on ideology.  With the stroke of his pen, President Obama returned the United States to its rightful place as leader in science and progress, compassion and cures.

This executive order is a first step among many that need to be taken.  The President’s executive order allows for federal funding for research conducted on the stem cell lines that have been derived over the past eight years, through private funding and individual state initiatives.  These stem cell lines have already been created and have been in use for a number of years.  No longer will scientists have to be hamstrung in their investigations, and they have a considerable breadth of knowledge at their disposal now.  The executive order also mandates the establishment of guidelines issued by the NIH within the next 120 days, to ensure that this research is conducted with highest degree of oversight and ethical considerations.  This is an important change from the attitude toward science that we have seen since 2000.

This doesn’t tell the whole story, though, and it is important to understand that President Obama’s executive order does not and cannot provide funding for the derivation of new stem cell lines or the promising field of somatic cell nuclear transfer.  Because of existing legislative limitations, specifically the 1995 Dickey-Wicker Amendment, the ways in which federal monies will be allocated for new stem cell lines remains in the hands of Congress, and only Congress can remove the Dickey-Wicker Amendment and, thus, reduce limitations on some of the most promising areas of research.  Congressional action must be taken to decide whether the federal government will take this important next step, and many hope that it will.

Nevertheless, President Obama’s executive order brings a new day of hope for hundreds of millions.  I am deeply grateful for the renewed promise and trust instilled in science, and the path to lifesaving discoveries is now that much more clear.

Last week, steadfast stem cell proponents, Sen. Tom Harkin and Sen. Arlen Specter, reintroduced a version of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act to the Senate.  The bill that was reintroduced looks virtually identical to the two bills that were introduced, debated, passed, and ultimately vetoed by President Bush during his administration.  Moving this issue along in the Legislature covers ground not yet covered by President Obama in his nearly two months in office.

Should federal limitations on stem cell research funding be relaxed through passage of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, rather than through the signing of an executive order, two scenarios play themselves out.  First, an executive order is not binding forever, and act as the policy position for the serving President.  Through legislation, like the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, provisions for research become legal statute and resistant to the whims of any particular sitting president — a problem we have seen in the ping-pong nature of overturning and reinstating global gag rule depending on the sitting President’s ideology.  However, at the same time, we can’t know right now what advances in research will present themselves in the future and, depending on how the legislation gets crafted, some of the most potentially important areas of investigation might find itself prohibited unwittingly.  For instance, a new technique for deriving or differentiating stem cells might be discovered with much excitement for potential therapeutic applications, but it can be restricted if the legislation doesn’t specifically provide for it.  There are benefits and drawbacks to either policy progression, yet only time will tell which may have been the better option.

That said, what is very encouraging is that significant strides have been made over the past eight years, despite federal restrictions.  However, the relaxing of federal restrictions will go a long way in helping to provide national cohesion, coordination, and oversight, and will free up the logistical nightmare that restrictions have presented.  Whether Congress or President Obama is the first to act on this remains to be seen, and many grow impatient as they wait, but the day is coming.

This is a copy of a response I had written to this unfortunate op-ed in Newsday last month.  Newsday wasn’t able to publish the entire response, so here it is.

On Friday, Jan. 23^rd, Newsday ran an opinion piece, “NY Stem Cell Research Nears Dangerous Line”. I speak not on behalf of the Empire State Stem Cell Research Board but instead as a member of the board toward which the author, Jesse Reynolds, directed his criticism. I find it important – not only for science but also for those who place their hopes in this science—to respond to this inaccurate and inflammatory column.

In his piece, Reynolds makes many claims and takes aim at several issues that the Empire State Stem Cell Research Board, specifically the Ethics Committee, of which I am a member, has been debating since its inception in 2007. Reynolds addresses federal policy, somatic cell nuclear transfer, reproductive cloning, donor compensation, and cellular reprogramming, in a jumbled manner, coupling concepts that have nothing to do with one another and failing to explain how any of them impact science or the future of medicine. It is precisely this type of detrimental misinformation that has driven the stem cell research debate for far too long, and it is unfair to members of the scientific community, people who place their hopes in the future of stem cell research, and even those who are simply interested in understanding it. What is more, this very type of misinformation has been at the heart of restrictions that have all but hamstrung researchers looking to complete some of the most important scientific work being done today.

Though there are several to choose from, Mr. Reynolds’ criticism of somatic cell nuclear transfer and compensation for egg donation are especially troubling. To clarify the inaccurate description that Mr. Reynolds presented, somatic cell nuclear transfer is a critically important avenue of stem cell research that allows researchers to replicate the genetic material from an ordinary body (somatic) cell—from, say, a skin cell of someone who battles diabetes – and introduce it into an unfertilized and unimplanted egg that has had its nucleus removed. From this process, researchers can generate embryonic stem cell lines that carry genetic information from the cell donor, allowing scientists to investigate such things as the problems that arise when disease strikes. Distressingly and wrongly, Reynolds makes the claim that this research “increases the likelihood of human reproductive cloning”, an outrageous and untrue claim to make, as it does no such thing. This area of investigation is essential to understanding disease development, to determining the efficacy of potential therapies, and to ensuring the progress of the medical field. Yes, it is done in only few laboratories around the world, but because it is extremely complex and costly to conduct, not because it is being replaced by anything else that can replace it. In fact, since somatic cell nuclear transfer involves the usage of unfertilized eggs, which are the largest cells in the human body, it provides an opportunity to conduct research that no other cell can provide. This line of research is arguably unparalleled in its promise for understanding disease development and to the field of regenerative medicine.

Mr. Reynolds, in his piece, also challenged the Empire State Stem Cell Research Board in our consideration of compensating women for donating eggs for scientific research. He claims this to be “exploitative” and nearing a “dangerous line”, and both of these claims are untrue and unfair. Once again, Mr. Reynolds spoke in an inflammatory tone, without providing factual information. Important research, like somatic cell nuclear transfer and many other types, needs the availability of eggs in order for it to be conducted. In order for the research that has been established in New York to take place, it needs the help of women willing to donate. It is unreasonable to expect women to undergo the process of donating eggs for research without fairly compensating them to do it. It has been widely documented that to do otherwise would be an exception to the standard practice of compensating participants who engage in research – including, of course, men who donate sperm for similar reasons. As has been written in the relevant literature, to do otherwise, in itself, would be exploitative of and arbitrarily punitive to women who genuinely want to contribute to science and medical progress. This particular aspect of ethical guidelines surrounding stem cell research has been a veritable shroud that opponents of the research have hidden behind, often claiming to be protecting women from exploitation when, in fact, they are simply preventing research from moving forward. This can be seen in researchers’ prolonged inability to recruit women to donate eggs without compensating them to do it.

Mr. Reynolds’ criticism, both of the conduct of the Empire State Stem Cell Board and of policies it may adopt, is unfortunate and uninformed. His comments serve only to fuel the very same ideological and inflammatory ideas that have maligned this research for years without justification or fact behind them. This has been detrimental to science. This has been detrimental to public understanding. And this has been detrimental to the cause to which we all have committed ourselves: finding treatments and cures to disease.

There’s a dawn of a new day.  Following tomorrow’s inauguration of President-elect Obama, there’s the expectation that, within a short amount of time, the stem cell research policy limiting research in United States for the past 8 years will be reversed.  I expect the action to be quick, by way of executive order, with some kind of legislation crafted by Congress shortly thereafter.  This is exciting, for certain, but there are federal restrictions limiting research that are going to remain in place, despite any immediate action taken by Obama.

There is an amendment, implemented in 1995 and voted upon every year since then, that restricts some of the most promising kinds of stem cell research.  Known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, this caveat prevents the creation of embryos for the purposes of research, and in so doing, prevents research such as somatic cell nuclear transfer and parthenogenesis.  These areas of investigation are important to understanding disease development and to creating immune-resistant therapies.  The Dickey-Wicker Amendment has been an ongoing source of contention in the stem cell research debate, and it can arguably be seen as a way to couple stem cell research with abortion.  There is a chance that this amendment might finally be overturned, but these are waters that unfortunately might be tricky to tread, at least in the short-term.

Because of this federal restriction, states like New York and private institutions conducting research need to remain on the forefront.  A federal policy won’t take the place of all that needs to be done.  Though it goes a tremendous distance, a federal policy is no panacea, and we all need to remain both patient and vigilant that the most promising research is done.