Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    College Advising
    Serving Higher Ed
    Chronicle Festival 2025
Sign In
News

Obama’s Coming Stem-Cell Decision May Not Jump-Start Research

By Paul Basken February 4, 2009

Eight years ago, President George W. Bush sharply limited federal support for stem-cell research. The move cost universities millions of dollars while slowing the hunt for life-saving medical advances. And it may now be only days before President Obama reverses course.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

Eight years ago, President George W. Bush sharply limited federal support for stem-cell research. The move cost universities millions of dollars while slowing the hunt for life-saving medical advances. And it may now be only days before President Obama reverses course.

But for all the trouble the presidential restriction has caused, and for all the political trauma that may accompany a cancellation of Mr. Bush’s order, both the science and the economics have evolved so far since 2001 that universities may feel affected far less by Mr. Obama’s decision than they were by Mr. Bush’s. Still, an obscure piece of legislation called the Dickey-Wicker Amendment may remain an obstacle no matter what the president does.

Mr. Obama’s anticipated reversal of policy “won’t be a boon the way some people might think,” said Arnold R. Kriegstein, director of the Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regeneration Medicine and Stem Cell Research at the University of California at San Francisco. “Time has moved on, and so has the field.”

Stem cells are capable of growing into any type of cell of the body. That ability gives them potential for curing a virtually unlimited range of ailments, including cancers, diabetes, heart disease, and various other organ failures.

Mr. Bush, however, restricted federal involvement in the use of discarded human embryos—long the most promising source of stem cells—out of a determination to protect anything that could potentially become a human life.

Several leading scientists said that ending Mr. Bush’s limits would mean a great deal to stem-cell research. His presidential order of August 2001 both took away the government money and required scientists working on any other federally supported projects to move their stem-cell research into separate facilities.

“The duplication is incredibly costly,” driving many universities and scientists out of stem-cell research altogether, said Alan O. Trounson, president of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. “It’s most important” for Mr. Obama to change course, Mr. Trounson said.

New Sources of Cells

And yet that importance may have grown largely symbolic. Several states are now supporting their own university research into stem cells, replacing the federal money. And scientific advances may be gradually reducing the need for human embryos as a source of stem cells.

Stem-cell research “has gone on in the United States anyway,” said Ronald G. Crystal, chairman of the department of genetic medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College. “It’s just cost more, and it’s been more cumbersome for scientists to do it.”

Key advances include the discovery in 2007 by Japanese researcher Shinya Yamanaka of a method for converting adult skin cells into near-perfect copies of stem cells.

ADVERTISEMENT

Dr. Yamanaka’s breakthrough “is absolutely changing the field,” said David T. Scadden, co-director of the Stem Cell Institute at Harvard University.

“It may be that we’ll be able to get away from embryonic stem cells completely,” Dr. Scadden said. “That’s something we’re all hoping will happen.”

Years of stagnation in federal support have also undercut the influence of Mr. Bush’s intervention. Total federal spending on scientific research, as distributed by the National Institutes of Health, jumped 15 percent a year between 1998 and 2003. But growth in the NIH research budget hasn’t exceeded the rate of inflation since then, leaving it stuck at around $30-billion a year.

That means stem-cell researchers, even if they’re allowed greater access to federal money, will struggle to get their projects financed, Dr. Kriegstein said. If Mr. Obama promises a policy reversal without finding significantly more money, “it will tend to ring hollow,” he said.

ADVERTISEMENT

A move by Mr. Obama might even bring scientists a counterproductive renewal of attention to the politics of stem cells. For all the attention Mr. Bush attracted with his 2001 order, stem-cell research has largely been redirected rather than blocked.

The Food and Drug Administration approved an application by Geron Corp. last month to conduct the world’s first embryonic stem-cell treatment tested in humans. Geron hopes to see if a therapy that allowed paralyzed rats to walk again, developed at the University of California at Irvine, will work in humans.

Cloudy Legislative Path

It’s not clear what action lawmakers might take if they are again pressed to take a high-stakes position on the subject. Congress has twice approved legislation in recent years that would reverse Mr. Bush’s order, with the action ending in a presidential veto. Yet Congress has, since 1995, annually approved a measure, known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, that prohibits either the creation or destruction of human embryos for research purposes.

The Bush order barred federally financed research from involving any stem cells that were derived from human embryos after the order’s effective date of August 9, 2001. The Dickey-Wicker Amendment’s continued ban on the use of federal funds in the creation or destruction of human embryos would mean some remaining complications for researchers. Most human embryos used in stem-cell research are discarded by couples attempting pregnancy through in vitro fertilization and are therefore not created initially for the purpose of research. And stem cells can be extracted without killing the embryo.

ADVERTISEMENT

Richard O. Hynes, a professor of cancer research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said it’s “not essential” to the cause of stem-cell research to eliminate Dickey-Wicker right away.

Dickey-Wicker nevertheless looms as an obstacle, both as a matter of principle and practice, given problems like an insufficient number of human embryos.

“The most important action the Obama administration can take is to erase ideology from the oversight and funding of all aspects of stem cell research and medicine,” Irving L. Weissman, director of Stanford University’s Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine Institute, said in a statement.

Researchers have a powerful Congressional ally in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, who says she has been assured by Obama-administration officials that the president will soon lift the Bush-administration ban. Eliminating Dickey-Wicker would be more difficult, given the level of bipartisan support it enjoys, a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said.

ADVERTISEMENT

And even the lifting of the Bush administration order might not be straightforward. Mr. Obama promised as a presidential candidate to lift the order, then said in an interview last month that he’d prefer that Congress enact the change though legislation, to make it more definitive.

That statement concerns some advocates, who like the idea of a more permanent revocation of the presidential order but fear that a prolonged Congressional debate could produce a less-than-complete removal of the Bush policy.

The Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, an association of patient and educational groups, is content for now to wait for the president to fulfill his campaign pledge. “We remain confident that it’s going to be done by executive order,” said the group’s president, Amy Comstock Rick, chief executive of the Parkinson’s Action Network.

Ethical Issues

If a political battle does resume, scientists are ready to join the argument on moral grounds. More than 400,000 embryos created for couples seeking to get pregnant lie frozen in storage tanks across the country, and if researchers don’t use them, the only other option is to destroy them, Dr. Scadden, of Harvard, said.

ADVERTISEMENT

That’s not a “morally defensible choice,” he said. “The idea of not working to develop a therapy with something that would otherwise go in the incinerator is ethically uncomfortable.”

And American scientists over all have a record of showing good judgment about the moral implications of their work, he said, citing voluntary limits in such areas as gene-therapy experimentation.

Others aren’t so sure. William B. Hurlbut, a bioethicist and physician at the Stanford University School of Medicine, has pleaded with stem-cell researchers to find alternatives that don’t involve human embryos. Dr. Hurlbut is among the advocates of a process known as “altered nuclear transfer,” in which the genetic material of a patient is inserted into a human-donor egg, theoretically allowing the egg to function like the nucleus of an early embryo.

Stem-cell researchers discount the potential of that method. The promise of altered nuclear transfer is “absolutely bogus,” said Peter J. Donovan, co-director of the Sue and Bill Gross Stem Cell Research Center at the University of California at Irvine.

ADVERTISEMENT

Dr. Kriegstein, of San Francisco, was also skeptical. “It’s a workaround, and not very satisfactory,” he said.

There are other problems with avoiding human embryos or relying on nonfederal funding, the researchers said. Beyond requiring logistical efforts like sticking red tags on laboratory equipment that cannot be used by stem-cell investigators because it was purchased with federal money, the government’s restriction slows human cooperation in a field so young and complex that it needs intensive collaboration, said Patrick White, vice president for federal relations at the Association of American Universities.

A “patchwork quilt of resources” has emerged in the wake of the Bush-administration restrictions, with state governments, universities, and businesses picking up the slack, Mr. White said. That has made more results proprietary, slowing down the sharing process, he said.

The federal ban did allow innovative states like California—which allocated $3-billion for stem cell research in 2004—to grab a large share of the scientific talent (The Chronicle, November 12, 2004). But with the country’s economic troubles, such commitments may wane. Harvard, which has seen a 20-percent drop in its endowment in recent months, is now reconsidering a planned new research facility for its stem-cell program.

ADVERTISEMENT

The political uncertainty also redirected the careers of an unknown number of potential students and researchers, said Dr. Scadden, of Harvard. “It really discouraged a lot of people from being in the field,” he said.

That is a critical setback for such a complicated scientific endeavor that is probably many years from producing hard results, Dr. Crystal, of Weill Cornell, said. The challenges are immense, he said, even if researchers figure out how to grow a stem cell into a particular organ of the body. For instance, a heart built from stem cells might give a donor a new heart, but the cells could migrate, “and all of a sudden you have a beating heart in the brain,” he said.

Even if overall NIH funding remains low, stem-cell research holds so much promise that scientists—if freed from the Bush-administration constraints—will have a competitive edge that will let them rapidly gain ground against other fields, Mr. White said.

And history has shown, Dr. Crystal said, that worthwhile science will advance regardless of societal beliefs. “If there are good scientific reasons to help people, to make lives better,” he said, “then the science will go on, as it has.”

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
Paul Basken Bio
About the Author
Paul Basken
Paul Basken was a government policy and science reporter with The Chronicle of Higher Education, where he won an annual National Press Club award for exclusives.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Protesters attend a demonstration in support of Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, March 10, 2025, in New York.
First Amendment Rights
Noncitizen Professors Testify About Chilling Effect of Others’ Detentions
Photo-based illustration of a rock preciously suspended by a rope over three beakers.
Broken Promise
U.S. Policy Made America’s Research Engine the Envy of the World. One President Could End That.
lab-costs-promo.jpg
Research Expenses
What Does It Cost to Run a Lab?
Research illustration Microscope
Dreams Deferred
How Trump’s Cuts to Science Funding Are Derailing Young Scholars’ Careers

From The Review

University of Virginia President Jim Ryan keeps his emotions in check during a news conference, Monday, Nov. 14, 2022 in Charlottesville. Va. Authorities say three people have been killed and two others were wounded in a shooting at the University of Virginia and a student is in custody. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)
The Review | Opinion
Jim Ryan’s Resignation Is a Warning
By Robert Zaretsky
Photo-based illustration depicting a close-up image of a mouth of a young woman with the letter A over the lips and grades in the background
The Review | Opinion
When Students Want You to Change Their Grades
By James K. Beggan
Photo-based illustration of a student and a professor, each occupying a red circle in a landscape of scribbles.
The Review | Opinion
Meet Students Where They Are? Maybe Not.
By Mark Horowitz

Upcoming Events

Chronfest25_Virtual-Events_Page_862x574.png
Chronicle Festival: Innovation Amid Uncertainty
07-16-Advising-InsideTrack - forum assets v1_Plain.png
The Evolving Work of College Advising
Lead With Insight
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin