By AMY ADAMS

Before a near-capacity crowd in the Clark Center auditorium Thursday, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., described his vision for the future of science funding in the United States, which includes more money for research, funding targeted for new disease treatments and the advancement of stem cell research.

As chair of the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations subcommittee, Specter’s vision profoundly affects how the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, funds basic science, such as research taking place at the School of Medicine.

Specter helped more than double the NIH budget from $12 billion in 1999 to $28 billion in 2004. “This has been heralded as a mighty accomplishment, but I don’t even think it’s a start when you are talking about human health,” he said.
This increased funding will go toward finding new treatments for human disease such as cancer, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.

Specter also would like the money to be spent on research using embryonic stem cells. He has been a prominent advocate of stem cell research in the Congress, calling attempts to ban such research “scandalous.”

In a visit to the School of Medicine last week, Sen. Arlen Specter didn’t mince words when criticizing the Bush administration’s position on limiting stem cell research. Shown here listening to a question from the audience, the Republican from Pennsylvania raised an alarm about U.S. medical researchers leaving the country to do their work. Photo: Visual Arts Services

Stem cells have the ability to become any cell type. Researchers who study stem cells hope they may one day be used to replace cells lost in Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease or in people with spinal cord injuries, among other disorders.

“We’ve already seen prominent researchers leave the United States for places where they can pursue stem cell research,” Specter said.

Roger Pedersen left UC-San Francisco for the University of Cambridge in 2001 after President Bush announced limiting government-funded research to existing stem cell lines. These lines are considered insufficient because they have been exposed to mouse cells and may contain mouse virus. Scientists worry these viruses may be transmitted to humans if the cells are used therapeutically, Specter said.

Since the 2001 announcement, Specter has held 16 Senate hearings on the potential of stem cell research. He said stem cell-based treatments are commonly referred to as “therapeutic cloning,” a term he said gives people an inaccurate idea about the technique. He argued for the scientific community to use the term “nuclear transfer” as a better way of describing the creation of new stem cell lines while avoiding the controversial word “cloning.”

Despite his efforts, stem cell legislation is in what Specter called “a state of suspended animation” in the Congress. “It’s a rough-and-tumble debate,” he said. Opponents argue that allowing the creation of new stem cell lines could open the door to reproductive cloning, in which a new person is created from an adult cell. To prevent this outcome, a group of senators led by Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., have proposed criminalizing the creation or use of new stem cell lines with a $10-million fine and 10 years in jail.

“We’re facing the same problem Galileo faced,” Specter said. “Can you imagine? They want to send scientists to jail.”

During a question-and-answer session, Paul Berg, PhD, the Robert W. and Vivian K. Cahill Professor of Cancer Research, emeritus, suggested moving forward with a ban on reproductive cloning as one way of easing those concerns and allowing the creation of new stem cells. “If we had a law banning reproductive cloning as exists in other countries you negate the slippery slope argument,” he said.

Specter pointed out that opponents of stem cell research avoid banning reproductive cloning because doing so would eliminate the most compelling argument against stem cell research. “The science is being held hostage by those who want to ban nuclear transfer,” he said. “They are playing hardball politics.”

Specter urged Stanford scientists to become politically involved in this debate. He said the only way to overcome opposition to nuclear transfer is to contact representatives and be vocal about benefits of the research. Lawyers and doctors have become politically active to protect their fields – now he says research scientists must do the same or see scientific research be trumped by ideology.