Analysis: NIH Head Backs Stem Cell Use

Mar 19, 07:34 PM

Current Headlines: By TODD ZWILLICH

The head of the National Institutes of Health broke with the White House Monday, calling limits on embryonic stem cell research set by President Bush shortsighted and suggesting the nation would be better served if the policy were reversed.

In testimony before a Senate committee, NIH director Elias Zerhouni suggested strict limits on federally funded embryonic research are holding back U.S. scientists from competing on the world stage.

I think it's important for us not to function with one hand tied behind our back here, Zerhouni said. To sideline NIH in an issue of such importance is shortsighted.

President Bush set a policy on August 9, 2001, that limited NIH research funding to 78 cell lines already created by that date. At the time, Bush billed the decision as a compromise that would advance research without using taxpayer money to fund the destruction of human embryos for their stem cells.

Only about 22 of the lines have proved usable for research, and scientists have reported that they are all contaminated in a way that will prevent them from being used for human applications.

Zerhouni, who was appointed by President Bush to head the $28 billion-per-year agency in 2002, in the past has said he favors advancing all forms of biomedical research. But he has usually been careful not to repudiate White House policy, especially on the politically charged issue of stem cell research.

On Monday, Zerhouni said that the policy was harmless at first because it allowed NIH to build its infrastructure for stem cell studies. But he said that since 2004, the United States has begun to fall behind other countries.

It's very clear these cell lines will not be sufficient to do all the research we need to do, Zerhouni said in response to a question from Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, chair of the appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Department of Health and Human Services.

It is clear today that American science will be better served and the nation will be better served if we let our scientists have access to more cell lines, he added.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto played down Zerhouni's comments, saying they were not different from past statements. But asked by a reporter whether the director was breaking with administration policy in calling for funding for new cell lines, Fratto said, If that is what he is saying, then I believe it is.

Zerhouni declined to answer reporters' question following the hearing.

Sean Tipton, executive director for the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, a pro-embryonic stem cell group, said Zerhouni has always advocated for broad research, but always emphasized the positive aspects of President Bush's policy.

I haven't heard this candid of an assessment of what the limitations of the policy are, Tipton said. What you're hearing now is a recognition, is six years of this policy, we've played it out for all its worth, he added

Congress voted to repeal the President Bush's policy last spring. President Bush used the first -- and so far only -- veto of his presidency to reject the measure.

The House passed the repeal again in January, though with too few votes to override another veto. The Senate is expected to take up the measure shortly after Easter.

Harkin, the bill's main Democratic sponsor, has acknowledged he remains one vote short of the 67 needed to override a veto. In an interview following the haring, Harkin predicted Zerhouni's comments would help his case.

I think now people are going to say, whew, this is the head of NIH saying this, he said

Zerhouni's comments came during a hearing on NIH's overall finances, in which Zerhouni also complained that budget cuts have forced the agency to cut back on research.

The White House's latest budget called for cuts of approximately $500 million to NIH's research budget, including cuts at the National Cancer Institute. Zerhouni said the agency now funds 20 percent of research funding requests from scientists, versus a 30 percent funding rate historically.

I'm concerned that 20 percent is too low, he said.