Mar. 29, 2010 - NIH Ethics Requirements Complicate Research Of Some Embryonic Stem Cells
Mar. 22, 2010 - Duke receives $10 million gift for stem cell research
Mar. 12, 2010 - The Challenges And Opportunities Facing Stem Cell Scientists
Mar. 8, 2010 - NIH Proposes Revising Embryonic Stem Cell Definition
Mar. 1, 2010 - Facebook Fans Sound Off on Stem Cell Research
Feb. 22, 2010 - Study: Stem cell research money provides jobs, taxes
Feb. 8, 2010 - Senate Bill Could Repeal Stem Cell Research Ban
Feb. 1, 2010 - Group says poll shows support on stem cell research
Jan. 19, 2010 - State commission receives stem-cell funding requests
Jan. 19, 2010 - Stem cell research advances
Jan. 14, 2010 - San Clemente scientist publishes stem-cell book
Jan. 11, 2010 - Intellectually Disabled Student Wins Dorm Suit
Jan. 7, 2010 - Reflecting On A Decade Of Stem Cell Research
Although restrictions on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research have been lifted under the Obama administration, some researchers are finding the new ethical requirements burdensome, the Washington Post reports.
Under the George W. Bush administration, only 21 stem-cell "lines" were permitted to receive federal research funding. President Obama relaxed the restrictions but allowed the National Institutes of Health to issue ethics guidelines. The guidelines in part require that stem cell research using federal funds meet certain ethical criteria, such as making sure that the people who donated the embryos were informed of other options. Researchers who have existing federal grants can keep studying the "Bush" lines, but any research that involves new grants, even research using the old lines, must meet the NIH guidelines.
It is unclear how many of the original 21 lines meet the new ethics guidelines. According to the Post, NIH has approved 43 lines, only one of which is from the original group of 21 lines. In addition, NIH still has 115 lines to review, and only two of those are "Bush" lines.
Timothy Kamp, director of stem cell and regenerative medicine center at the University of Wisconsin, said, "Some of these lines were derived more than a decade ago," meaning that relevant records may not be available, and may not have available records, while "some of the researchers who derived the lines aren't around anymore" or "might not be motivated to provide those records in a timely fashion." He added, "We're losing access to those lines in this approval process for some period of time -- maybe indefinitely. They are the main workhorses for many of our projects." Kamp says that NIH should revise its guidelines to grandfather in the existing lines or give researchers a two-year grace period so that they can continue their research using new grants.
Lana Skirboll, NIH's director of science policy, said the agency is "sympathetic," but she added, "Our responsibility is to make sure we're conducting research with lines that were responsibly derived" (Stein, Washington Post, 3/15).
Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.
A $10.2 million gift from a North Carolina family’s foundation will help fund research at Duke University using umbilical cord stem cells as a novel treatment for cerebral palsy, the university announced today.
The Robertson Foundation grant establishes a Translational Cell Therapy Center at Duke that will advance cell-based treatments, notably the work of Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg. She has an international following after pioneering the use of umbilical cord cells to treat cancer and genetic disorders in children.
The grant is the latest large donation from private sources to advance medical research at local universities. It comes on the heels of more than $150 million in scientific research grants to Triangle institutions from federal tax stimulus dollars.
Last week, Duke announced a $12 million gift to its eye center, and UNC-Chapel Hill officials last year received $22 million from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for health projects in Africa.
The Robertson Foundation was established in 1996 by Julian H. Robertson, Jr., founder of the hedge fund Tiger Management, and his wife Josie and their family.
The United States government's decision last year to lift restrictions on federally-funded stem cell research has helped the nation's stem-cell researchers concentrate on science, but limitations remain - even under the new policy, according to George Daley, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator at Children's Hospital Boston.
Daley's presentation at the AAAS Annual Meeting in San Diego, Calif., on February 20, 2010 described the current climate facing stem cell researchers in the United States. He also discussed his current viewpoint on whether induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) - which are derived from adult cells - will have the same potential therapeutic utility as human embryonic stem cells.
Human embryonic stem cells have the remarkable capacity to mature into all of the 200 kinds of cells that make up the human body: skin, bone, nerve, blood, heart, and so on. By this nature, the cells hold great promise for treating devastating diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer, and diabetes. However, some consider human embryonic stem cell research controversial because, in some cases, the new stem cell lines are derived frozen human embryos that have been donated for research. New strategies have been recently developed that circumvent this issue by genetically reprogramming adult cells.
On March 9, 2009, President Obama lifted the ban that had previously restricted the use of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research on cell lines that had been created after August 9, 2001. "Over a thousand lines have been derived since August 9, 2001, many with attributes beneficial to medical research," says Daley, whose own lab has derived 18 new stem cell lines. Until the change in policy, these lines could only be studied with private funds. Obama called upon the National Institutes of Health to set up rigorous guidelines to ensure that new stem cells lines were derived by ethical practices.
Although less restrictive, the new policy does have its own challenges. Only one of the "pre-April 9, 2001-lines" that had been approved and used for federally-funded research during the last decade are currently approved under the new guidelines. That's impeding research, says Daley. "Ten years of research are under some doubt because of the inability to continue to work on the Bush lines. We need the scientists who derived the older lines to step up and get their lines approved under the new system."
Daley's talk also highlighted the differences between embryonic stem cells and iPS cells, which were first created from adult human cells in 2007. The iPS strategy is an important tool because it can be used to create disease-specific stem cell lines that, like embryonic stem cells, can develop into many cell types. Daley and other scientists are using iPS technology to reprogram cells from patients with diseases such as Lou Gehrig's disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), Huntington's disease, and diabetes. With these "disease-specific" iPS cells in hand, researchers can learn more about how such diseases develop and hopefully identify new therapeutic strategies.
Despite the promise of iPS cells, scientists are still struggling to understand whether their developmental potential is equivalent to that of embryonic stem cells. Some studies have suggested that iPS cells have more fragile genomes or are more prone to DNA abnormalities than embryonic stem cells. This fragility could make them unsafe to use therapeutically. The bottom line, says Daley, is that research on both types of stem cells must continue, because it's too early to predict where the safest and most effective cell-based therapies will come from.
"It's a remarkably fast paced and exciting field," says Daley. "We've had a decade of diversions and distractions, and we as a scientific community are relieved to have a more rational scientific policy, which allows us to focus almost exclusively on the science."
"Rethinking the Science, Biology, and Importance of Stem Cells in Regenerative Medicine" Saturday, February 20, 2010
In addition to George Daley, speakers include HHMI investigator Owen Witte, University of California, Los Angeles; Irving Weissman, Stanford University School of Medicine; Fred Gage, Salk Institute for Biological Studies; Rudolf Jaenisch, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and R. Alta Charo, University of Wisconsin.
Source:
Jennifer Michalowski
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
NIH on Friday proposed a small change to its definition of embryonic stem cells "that could have a big effect on [stem cells'] long-term ability to lead to cures for a variety of diseases," the Los Angeles Times' "Booster Shots" reports (Kaplan, "Booster Shots," Los Angeles Times, 2/19). Under the new NIH guidelines on federally funded stem cell research issued in July 2009, embryonic stem cells that can be used in federally funded research are generated from the blastocyst, an embryonic stage reached five days after fertilization. NIH's proposed change to the definition in the new guidelines would allow researchers to work with cells derived from eggs at an earlier stage, meaning they could use cell lines created from blastomeres -- the cells derived after the fertilized egg's first few divisions (Wade, New York Times, 2/20).
Details of Proposal
In a request for public comment published in the filing with the Federal Register, NIH said the definition of embryonic stem cell research in in the July 2009 NIH guidelines "had the unintended consequence of excluding [embryonic stem cells] which may otherwise be appropriate for federal funding." The change to the definition would include "pluripotent cells that are derived from early stage human embryos, up to and including the blastocyst stage; are capable of dividing without differentiating the prolonged period in culture; and are known to develop into cells and tissues of the three primary germ layers." There is a public comment period before the final rule takes effect, the Los Angeles Times' "Booster Shots" reports (Kaplan, "Booster Shots," Los Angeles Times, 2/19).
According to the New York Times, the proposal would benefit several academic researchers, as well as a company -- Advanced Cell Technology -- that has filed a request with FDA to test a treatment for the eye disease macular degeneration. ACT is a private company and therefore not normally restricted by NIH's rules for federally financed research. However, ACT's proposed clinical trial will receive support from the Department of Defense, so NIH approval of the cells is required, according Robert Lanza, chief scientific officer for ACT. Another company, Geron, already has received FDA approval for a clinical trial that would test the use of embryonic stem cells to treat a spinal cord injury (New York Times, 2/20).
Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.
Regulating stem cell research is a hot topic on our Facebook page. We asked whether our fans think stem cell research needs further regulation and more ethical safeguards, or if they think more regulation will stand in the way of potentially life-saving research. So far our fans are divided on this one.
Lee Robertson: "I think the more restrictions that are put on stem cell research, the less chance there is of discovering more uses, cures and treatments. Leave things as they are and let the scientists do what they need to do."
Ron Fulger: "The only promising research with any demonstrable success has been with adult stem cell research and efforts should be focused in that direction."
Michael Wetzel: "As long as the accepted ethics are not to kill a baby or harm another adult in the process, I think I support it."
This proposal is stalled in the senate over concerns that the changes may not be exactly what voters intended when they approved the measure two years ago.
The Maryland Stem Cell Research Commission is using a new report to bolster its appeal for at least level funding in next year's budget.
The study, conducted by Sage Policy Group of Baltimore, shows that the program — which grants millions of dollars in awards each year, mostly to university researchers — supports 514 jobs in the state, with an average salary of $64,000. The program facilitates $71.3 million in business sales in the state, and the stem cell industry generates $2.7 million in state and local taxes annually, the study says.
The Maryland Technology Development Corp., which administers the stem cell fund program, commissioned the study.
Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) is seeking $12.4 million for the stem cell fund in fiscal 2011, the same amount appropriated for the current fiscal year. That's a significant decrease from just two years ago, when some $22 million was appropriated for stem cell research grants. Last year, the program received $18 million. In June 2008, before the recession took a serious bite out of the state's finances, O'Malley proposed spending $20 million annually over the next 10 years under his Bio 2020 initiative.
Lawmakers are currently considering stem cell research funding in the fiscal 2011 budget. The Department of Legislative Services has recommended cutting O'Malley's proposal in half, to $6.2 million in fiscal 2011, as a "cost containment measure."
"This action will assist in alleviating the State's current budgetary concerns, while still allowing the continuance of this discretionary program at a more modest level," the department wrote in its analysis.
Senate and House subcommittees held hearings this week and last on the issue. Among those who testified were John M. Wasilisin, acting president and executive director of Tedco, and Dan Gincel, director of the stem-cell research fund since 2007.
According to Gincel, most lawmakers support funding stem cell research.
"They all are aware of the importance of the fund, and all want to support it in one way or another," Gincel said, although some legislators have reservations concerning funding embryonic stem cell research.
Among those testifying was Nancy Paltell of the Maryland Catholic Conference, who said the program hasn't focused enough on adult stem cell research with more immediate, practical applications for patients.
O'Malley said the new report is an indication of the program's significance in strengthening the state's economy.
"The findings of this economic development analysis validate, on paper, what supporters of stem cell research in our state have been saying for years — that Maryland's investment in stem cell research is not only critical to advancing science, but to moving our state's economy forward," O'Malley said in a statement. "Without the Maryland Stem Cell Research Fund, more than 500 Marylanders would be without a job and millions of direct and indirect dollars in state revenue would be lost. In this uncertain economy, the continued investment in stem cell research remains sound and valuable."
The study was based on data from the stem cell fund's first two years, fiscal 2007 and 2008. In those two years, the program awarded 82 projects totaling $38 million to Maryland stem cell researchers.
All told, the program has awarded more than $56 million to fund 140 research grants. The lion's share of the grants has gone to researchers at Johns Hopkins University, with most of the rest going to University of Maryland scientists. Only a few have gone to private-sector researchers.
That may change, however, Gincel said.
The stem cell commission is now encouraging funding more collaborations between private companies and university researchers, he said. This year, the program received 41 applications from such collaborations, and the stem cell commission has directed the fund's officials to give preference to those that pass initial scientific muster.
A South Dakota senate committee bill proposes big changes when it comes to stem cell research.
The bill proposes to quote, "Repeal the prohibition against stem cell treatments and research and to establish ethical guidelines to regulate stem cell research."
Right now the bill is in a senate committee.
That committee will start hearing testimony both for and against Bill 74 on Monday.
Which is also when it's possible the committee could vote to send the bill to the senate floor.
Here we explain the bill and hear from both sides of the debate.
As it stands now Senate Bill 74 is an act to repeal the ban against stem cell treatments and research with the following guidelines:
No person can attempt to perform human cloning.
There can be no fertilization solely for the purpose of steam cell research.
No stem cells can be taken later than 14 days of cell division.
No one can buy or sell eggs for stem cell research.
No eggs may be used for stem cell research., unless the eggs are donated with informed consent in writing.
And stem cell research can only be done by someone with legal designation.
A controversial issue - we start with those who support Senate Bill 74 as it's written now.
David Volk with South Dakota Lifesaving Cures explains why it's embroynic stem cell research that's needed.
"We don't think government should tell you what treatment you can get, for us it's a freedom thing. Choose for yourself and for your family."
While on the other side Chris Hupke is the president of the South Dakota Family Policy Council.
While he supports adult stem cell research, he says studies show it's the embryonic stem cell research that doesn't work.
"There are no peer reviewed studies that have ever shown the science works. They've been studying the cells in mice for 30 years."
The Health and Human Services Committee considering Senate Bill 74 will meet at 7:45 Monday morning to hear testimony from those both for and against.
It's possible a vote could come soon after, and that could send the bill to the senate floor...according to Democratic State Senator Sandy Jerstad.
"Generally speaking if we're all done with testimony on Monday the likelihood is quite high we would take our vote on Monday."
If you'd like to read the bill for yourself we have a link where you can do that posted at News Links.
Despite the fact that South Dakota is a relatively conservative state when it comes to politics and morals, a group that wants to repeal the stem cell research ban says most of us agree with them.
In a release today, South Dakotans for Lifesaving Cures claims their poll shows strong public support for legislators to lift the ban.
The poll reportedly shows 47 percent support lifting the ban, while 31 percent want it to stay. But that 16 point spread could close or become a gaping hole if the 22 percent who are undecided pick a corner.
Senate Bill 74, which has yet to have a committee hearing, would lift that ban.
People opposed to the ban claim research can help save lives. But a group called Coalition for Cures Not Cloning, has been formed to lobby against any changes to the law.
A state research commission said Wednesday that it received 141 applications from commercial and nonprofit groups that are seeking funding to support stem-cell research. The Maryland Stem Cell Research Commission's research fund has an annual budget of $12.4 million. Total requests for funding from applicants for fiscal 2010 surpassed $45 million, the commission said. The commission provides grants for research, including for scientists new to the stem-cell field, for those in the early phases of research and for postdoctoral fellows. Funding decisions are expected in May.
- Gus G. Sentementes
With more embryonic stem cell lines released and $21 million in funding earmarked, stem cell research advances.
This story is adapted from a broadcast audio segment; use audio player to listen to story in its entirety
Near the close of 2009, President Obama lived up to his campaign promises, releasing more embryonic stem cell lines for research and earmarking $21 million more in funding.
According to Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, President Obama's executive order called for the NIH to issue new guidelines for stem cell research. Based on the new guidelines, researchers who had developed stem cell lines using non-government funded research were invited to submit their lines for review.
"As of today, there are 40 such cell lines that have been approved that are listed on a registry," said Collins. "And that in fact, federally-funded researchers may now begin to work with to try to understand critical questions about human development, and to move us forward in the hoped-for outcomes where this kind of approach may lead to really impressive and dramatic new breakthroughs in treatment of things like spinal cord injury, diabetes, Parkinson's disease."
Collins admits that it's unknown whether the breakthroughs will happen or not with the new cell lines, but says that at least research can be done.
Dr. Kevin Fitzgerald, Research Associate Professor in the Department of Oncology at Georgetown University, is concerned about whether the policy shift on stem cell research serves a greater good, or merely a particular political agenda.
The policy shift Fitzgerald refers to involves President Bush's initial release of 21 stem cell lines. "When he made his position clear, he said no more lines will be allowed to be created because that would require further destruction of human embryos. Now the idea is there is the possibility for an ongoing destruction of human embryos to create more lines as long as that process fits the particular criteria that are now being used by Dr. Collins and the people at the NIH to decide whether or not something is ethically justifiable."
Collins argues that the new policy still does not allow the use of federal funding to derive new stem cells lines from human embryos. "What the Obama executive order said was that if lines have been derived already, they may now be used for federal funding."
He adds that the guidelines only allow funding for lines derived from excess embryos that have been produced as part of in vitro fertilization. "So no embryos are being created for research purposes. I would personally have trouble with that, in fact."
But, Fitzgerald asks, now that the federal funding is there, is there incentive for more lines to be created with private money?
Additionally, Fitzgerald says, there have been advancements that make the need to use embryonic stem cells less urgent. "I mean if you go back 10 years and you listen to what certain scientists had to say, they were all saying adult stem cells couldn't do x, y and z and you had to have embryonic stem cell lines. Of course this was before the discovery of the process that allows for the induced pluripotent stem cells lines and all that.
"So has there been advance? Absolutely, and it's been unbelievable to many people, the extent of the advance. So I think you can continue to raise the question, since this is an issue for so many, is this still such a need?"
Which raises the question of whether there is a clear and consistent consideration of the moral and ethical concerns around stem cell research.
Collins admits it's still up for debate, but many experts on stem cell research conclude, based on scientific data, that there is currently no better substitute.
He argues that if it's possible, through science that follows ethical guidelines, to help people suffering from diseases, that in itself is a moral consideration. "And if the path to get there is to basically utilize embryos that are going to be discarded anyway -- as the process of in vitro fertilization always produces more than gets implanted -- then is it not a moral argument, even for somebody who has a very strong moral compass and who's a strong believer in God as I am, is it not an acceptable argument to say that this is a path forward, which while difficult, is entirely defensible?"
"The Tavis Smiley Show" is a weekly show offering a unique blend of news and newsmakers in expanded conversations, along with feature reports and regular commentators. "The Tavis Smiley Show" is produced by Tavis Smiley productions, and distributed nationwide by PRI.
By BRITTANY LEVINE
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
A San Clemente scientist wanted to demystify stem-cell research so he wrote a book about what's new and what's next in the field.
"Cracking the Stem Cell Code" by Christian Drapeau was one of Amazon's top alternative-medicine sellers before Christmas during its advance sales. The book was officially released Jan. 1.
"I wanted to clear a lot of that cloudiness around stem cells," Drapeau said. "At the moment, when you say stem cells, a lot of people think of killing babies. There's a bad aura."
Drapeau is chief science officer at StemTech HealthSciences, a research firm headquartered in San Clemente that makes stem-cell-enhancing nutritional products. He received his training in neurophysiology from the Montreal Neurological Institute and is a frequent speaker at scientific events.
His book, published by Sutton Hart Press, is like a "Stem Cells for Dummies." Drapeau focuses on adult stem-cell research, which isn't to be confused with the embryonic kind that has long been a topic of public debate. Drapeau says he is against embryonic research for scientific reasons, not ethical ones.
Stem cells are like an internal repair system, according to the National Institutes of Health. When an organ or tissue is hurt, the bone marrow releases adult stem cells that travel back to the injured area, turning into healthy cells. Proponents say stem cells can unlock the key to curing diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Many opponents of stem-cell research say using embryos for research kills life.
Last March, President Barack Obama ended an eight-year ban on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research.
The public focus on embryonic stem-cell research has pushed adult stem-cell research into the shadows, Drapeau said. He hopes his book changes that.
"I tend to be more on the progressive side" of the research, Drapeau said. "But the literature is out there. I'm just guiding people to the literature that exists."
Here's one reason Micah Fialka-Feldman wants to live on his college campus, instead of remaining at home with his parents: To get to college in the morning, he takes the public bus near his home, then transfers to a second bus. The trip takes about two hours.
Fialka-Feldman, 24, attends classes at Oakland University, as part of a program for students like him, with intellectual disabilities. The campus is about 20 miles from where he lives with his parents in Huntington Woods, Mich.
A few years ago, Fialka-Feldman helped his younger sister Emma move into her dorm room when she went off to college at Mount Holyoke. It gave him another reason to want to live on campus: He thought he was missing out on an important part of college life. But his school said because he was in a special program and not a full-time student, he couldn't live on campus.
So Micah sued.
Early yesterday morning, his cell phone rang. It was his lawyer with the news: He had won. "I'm happy and I'm proud," say Fialka-Feldman.
A U.S. District Court judge in Michigan ruled that Oakland University had discriminated against Fialka-Feldman. The new school term starts Tuesday. And Fialka-Feldman says he hopes to move into his new dorm room by Sunday. He's got his computer, his radio and his bedding ready. He's got the posters he wants to put on the wall, including ones with quotes from civil rights leaders. One says: "A community that excludes one member is not a community at all."
To live on campus, he says, "means I would have the full college life and ... I could go to Friday night things in the dorm, like Friday night activities like a film night or like a basketball game and going out with friends."
His father, Rich Feldman, adds: "The judge's decision is a wonderful victory for Micah's dream to live in the dorm and a victory for so many other students and folks with cognitive disabilities. Now it's their right to be fully included in the college dormitory experience."
A spokesman for the university said officials there have not had time to evaluate the decision. The school can appeal.
It's pretty common these days for kids with intellectual disabilities like Down syndrome to go to their neighborhood schools and to be mainstreamed with all the other kids. And when these disabled students finish high school, they often want to go to college. In recent years, scores of community colleges and universities have opened special programs and invited students with intellectual disabilities to enroll. Oakland University has been a pioneer in opening up to these students. But the colleges can't always keep up with the rising expectations of disabled students and their parents.
Fialka-Feldman takes regular classes, and students act as tutors to help him follow along in class and keep up with his homework.
He has taken classes at Oakland since 2003 and the new term will be his last on campus. "I'm taking a class on public speaking. And a class on persuasion," he says.
He's already been pretty good at persuasion. In the course of fighting this case, he has spoken twice to the school's board of trustees, and he pressed his case in court. The university's study government voted to support Fialka-Feldman's right to live on campus, and the student body president, Kristin Dayag, was at his side at his court hearing earlier this month.
"Micah has really found his voice," says his mother, Janice Fialka. She remembers when Micah was 2 or 3, and still didn't speak. "I remember vividly asking the speech therapist, do you think that Micah will ever talk. And she hesitated. And that hesitation, which was probably only four seconds, felt like a lifetime," says Fialka, a social worker who now is a speaker on disability issues. "And basically she was saying, 'We don't know.' And now he's speaking in front of all kinds of people. So this is quite a journey of surprise, and the importance of believing that every person has a gift and should be supported in their dreams."
A generation ago, parents couldn't dream for their kids with disabilities. Before the 1975 special education law, public schools weren't even required to teach them — and about 1 million then didn't get any education at all.
Even today, lots of these kids aren't capable of going to college — and for many of them the future remains bleak.
But Paul Marchand, with the advocacy group The Arc, says parents now have higher expectations. "Parents want the best for their kids. They want their kids to get a job; they want their kids to be as independent as possible. They want society to accept them. They want their kids to be as typical as all the other kids of their age, including going to a college."
Last year, Congress passed legislation that for the first time makes it possible for people with intellectual disabilities to get federal college loans — even if they're not in a full-time program.
by Joe Palca
Some say they hold the potential for medical miracles. Others claim they are a moral abomination. Either way, human embryonic stem cells captured headlines during the past decade in a way few areas of scientific research have before.
There is no question that embryonic stem cells have remarkable properties. They can grow indefinitely in the lab, and they can turn into any cell type in the body. But to obtain them, a human embryo must be destroyed.
Scientists first showed that it was possible to grow embryonic stem cells in 1998.
Under normal circumstances, other scientists would have rushed to study the new cells. But because of congressional restrictions, federal money can't be used for research that harms an embryo.
President Bill Clinton decided it was OK to use federal money to study embryonic stem cells once they were growing in the lab, so long as private money was used to create them.
When President George W. Bush took office in January 2001, one of the first things he did was to put that decision on hold so he could reconsider it. In August of that year, the new president came to a rather surprising decision:
"I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life-and-death decision has already been made," he said.
The existing stem cell lines the president was talking about were the dozen or so lines that had already been made using non-federal dollars.
The decision pleased no one. Scientists were upset by the restrictions; critics of the research were upset that the president had allowed any federal money to be spent on embryonic stem cells.
Both sides went to work to change the policy.
In California, voters authorized spending $3 billion over 10 years for embryonic stem cell research. A bipartisan Congress voted to ease federal restrictions, legislation which Bush vetoed. And opponents continued to push for a total ban on the research.
With the election of President Obama, the tide swung toward the scientists. In a White House ceremony in March, Obama said, "With the executive order I am about to sign, we will bring the change that so many scientists and researchers, doctors and innovators, patients and loved ones have hoped for and fought for these past eight years. We will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research."
So where does the science of embryonic stem cells stand after a decade of political wrangling? A lot of exciting basic research is being done with embryonic stem cells, says Len Zon, a stem cell researcher at Children's Hospital in Boston. But using stem cells for therapy?
"I think that's still a ways off," Zon says. "Although there are some studies that the FDA is considering, I think we still have to figure out how to make these cells in a more efficient and effective way, and I think that's going to take awhile. You have to remember that the stem cell field is only 10 years old at the moment."
Zon points out that it's frequently two decades or more before new medical technologies find their way into patients.
More immediate, Zon says, is finding new drug therapies using a technique made possible by Japanese researcher Shinya Yamanaka. He found a way to take ordinary skin cells and turn them into cells that behave just like embryonic stem cells, but without destroying an embryo.
When the new technique was announced in 1997, stem cell researcher Jose Cibelli of Michigan State University predicted it would revolutionize the field of stem cell research, and not just because it removed the moral quandary of destroying embryos.
"Anybody can do this procedure," Cibelli said. "It's a very simple recipe. It's a combination of three or four genes, and in a couple of weeks you go from a skin cell to an embryonic stem cell. It's remarkable."
The new technique allows scientists to take cells from a patient with a disease, then convert them into these embryonic stem cell-like cells that can grow indefinitely in the lab.
Zon says he thinks this will change the way scientists understand diseases. But even though these new cells offer great promise, he says, research using cells derived from human embryos is still essential "because these new stem cells from the skin have to be compared to a golden standard. And the golden standard is the embryonic stem cells."
Zon says no matter what kind of stem cells are used, "I think stem cell research is the most exciting field in biology at this point."