For Immediate Release

Contact: John M. Martino
Phone Number:  (215) 895-1186
Date: 09/04/01

 -- A University of the Sciences in Philadelphia Health Tip --

The number 60 became a controversial figure when President George W. Bush announced to the nation that this was the amount of existing embryonic stem cell lines he would allow federal funding for research.  Some saw the announcement as a step in the right direction, while others frowned upon the number 60, claiming this is too low of a number for research that could lead to breakthroughs in discovering cures for life-threatening diseases.  "Limiting the number of stem cell lines scientists can use for research is basically tying their hands behind their backs," says Dr. James C. Pierce, associate professor of genetics and biotechnology at University of the Sciences in Philadelphia.  "We can not predict what experiments or research directions will ultimately lead to the therapeutic tools doctors will need to cure diseases such as Alzheimer's, diabetes and organ failure.  Restrictions can only slow the discovery process."

Many scientists are not convinced that the 60 stem cell lines mentioned by the President are all viable for scientists' aggressive research agenda.

 "These types of cell culture lines sometimes crash and cells don't respond to growth stimulating conditions," says Dr. Pierce. "Many of those 60 stem cell lines could have a limited research lifetime and then what?"

Dr. Pierce says stem cell research probes fundamental biological questions concerning the development of a multicellular organism. It is likely that important genetic programming events occur during the first cell divisions after fertilization and these may have an impact on the potential usefulness of stem cells for therapeutic uses.  The generation of new stem cell lines gives scientists the only tool available for the investigation of the early developmental genetic events that occur in a human being.

"Removing the research tool of de-novo stem cell lines will impact the scientific process," he says.  "The real question is by how much and at what cost to human health and suffering."

"If one of the goals is to use stem cells to treat a disease, such as Parkinson's Disease, you need reasonably good genetic matching cells to place back into the patient's brain," adds Dr. Pierce.  "If all the stem cells come from a limited genetic background, that may limit the types of clinical trials that medical researchers can perform.  In a perfect world, we would be able to reprogram an individual's own cells to perform the function of embryonic stem cells, but we are not that far along yet.  Also, many of the 60 cell lines may have been grown with the help of mouse cell culture 'feeder' lines and would be ineligible for human transplant"

The Human Genome Project has revolutionized the study of human biology, and Dr. Pierce believes stem cell research will go hand-in-hand with this science of the future, but it needs to expand and not be constricted.  "Before now, biologists have been observational, where they see somebody become sick and they think that a certain treatment will help," says Dr. Pierce.  "But now we've gone to a quantitative level, where we understand the entire genetic code of an organism.  We are beginning to understand why a disease happens and how an individual genotype and the gene expression patterns influence that disease."

Will these breakthroughs and advances be able to evolve in light of the stem cell research restrictions?  Dr. Pierce says he understands the ethical opposition to fetal research, but adds that creating embryonic stem cells by fusing a sperm and an egg in a plastic petri dish is an acceptable scientific/ethical compromise. 

"While I give President Bush accolades for supporting stem cell research, he should not try to predict the future in positing that 60 stem cell lines will be enough to get the job done."

"Stem cell research is a promising field, and it is based on one of the most fundamental parts of understanding how life works, which is the cell development process," adds Dr. Pierce.  "So, therefore, our federal money should be put towards studying these types of problems, and it will hopefully be money well spent.

"It will be clear pretty soon that by limiting what scientists can use, we will come to a brick wall and the only way to get around it is to do the experiments again with different cell lines or generate other cell lines that are specific to the problem.  Federal regulations need to loosen up through this presidential administration or a new one.

To arrange an interview with Dr. Pierce, contact John M. Martino at (215) 895-1186, or email: j.martin@usip.edu.

###