House to renew stem-cell debate

The author of a study on amniotic stem cells urged Congress on Tuesday not to consider his work a substitute for the search for disease-fighting material from embryonic stem cells.

"Some may be interpreting my research as a substitute for the need to pursue other forms of regenerative medicine therapies, such as those involving embryonic stem cells. I disagree with that assertion," wrote Anthony Atala of Wake Forest University, the author of a study published this week and widely seized upon by opponents of embryonic stem-cell research as a more moral option.

Atala and other researchers reported Sunday that the stem cells they drew from amniotic fluid donated by pregnant women hold much the same promise as embryonic stem cells.

In a letter to sponsors of legislation up for a House vote Thursday, Atala wrote that it was essential that researchers are able to pursue embryonic stem-cell research "as a complement to research into other forms of stem cells."

The bill, which would clear the way for federally funded embryonic research, is expected to pass but without the required two-thirds majority required to override Bush's expected veto. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said he expects the same bill to reach that veto-proof threshold when it comes up in his chamber in a few weeks.

Opponents of the legislation, which Bush vetoed last year, say Atala's study bolsters their argument that science need not advance at the expense of budding human life.

Dr. Michael Wulfers of Cape Girardeau said he favors research with stem cells drawn from amniotic fluid. "That would be fantastic," he said Tuesday.

Wulfers is an outspoken opponent of embryonic stem-cell research. Wulfers said he and other opponents of embryonic stem-cell research aren't opposed to other forms of stem-cell research. "We are only opposed to embryonic stem-cell research in which you are destroying a human organism," he said.

Extracting stem cells from amniotic fluid is morally acceptable, Wulfers said. "You are not creating a life to destroy it," he said.

But he said the latest study won't end the debate. "I think part of it is an abortion issue," he said.

Recy Moore, spokeswoman for the Catholic Diocese of Springfield-Cape Girardeau, said the church favors adult stem-cell research, which has already resulted in a number of medical advances.

The church opposes only research that involves destruction of human life, she said.

"We're talking about saving lives here," said Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., an obstetrician and staunch opponent of embryonic stem-cell research. "We don't have to split the nation on this if we've got an alternative."

He won't have much luck peeling off support from the bill, said one of its sponsors. "We won't lose anyone who was going to support the bill," said Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., one of her party's vote-counters in the House. In fact, she predicted, "several" lawmakers who voted against the bill in the last Congress will vote for it Thursday.

The research reported this week suggests stem cells extracted harmlessly from the amniotic fluid that cushions a fetus in-utero hold much the same promise for disease-fighting as embryonic stem cells.

Southeast Missourian staff writer Mark Bliss contributed to this report.