U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

23–759 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 109–191

EXPLORING THE PROMISE OF EMBRYONIC STEM

CELL RESEARCH

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

WASHINGTON, DC

JUNE 8, 2005

Serial No. 109–8

Printed for the use of the Special Committee on Aging

(

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon, Chairman 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

SUSAN COLLINS, Maine 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

CATHERINE FINLEY, Staff Director 

JULIE COHEN, Ranking Member Staff Director 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Opening Statement of Senator Gordon Smith ....................................................... 1

Opening Statement of Senator Herb Kohl ............................................................. 3

Opening Statement of Senator Susan Collins ....................................................... 4

Opening Statement of Senator Ron Wyden ........................................................... 5

Opening Statement of Senator Thomas Carper .................................................... 6

Prepared Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton .................................... 16

PANEL I 

Chris Dudley, diabetes advocate, and former center, Portland Trailblazers, 

Portland, OR ......................................................................................................... 8

Larry Goldstein, Ph.D., University of California-San Diego, School of Medicine, San Diego, CA; representing the American Society for Cell Biology ...... 20

Douglas A. Doerfler, president and chief executive officer, MaxCyte, Gaithersburg, MD, on behalf of the Biotechnology Industry Organization ................... 32

John D. Gearhart, Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University, Department of Medicine, 

Institute for Cell Engineering, Baltimore, MD .................................................. 40

Su-Chun Zhang, M.D., Ph.D., assistant professor of Anatomy and Neurology, 

Stem Cell Research Program, Waisman Mental Retardation Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI ........................................................... 49

APPENDIX 

Statement submitted by the John Hopkins University ........................................ 57

(III) 

(1)

EXPLORING THE PROMISE OF EMBRYONIC 

STEM CELL RESEARCH 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8, 2005 

U.S. SENATE, 

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in room SDG50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Gordon H. Smith (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Smith, Collins, Kohl, Wyden, Lincoln, Carper, 

and Clinton. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR GORDON H. SMITH, 

CHAIRMAN 

The CHAIRMAN. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I would 

like to welcome you all to what is sure to be an interesting and 

highly informative hearing of the Senate Special Committee on 

Aging: exploring the promise of embryonic stem cell research. 

Stem cell research is one of today’s most exciting and rapidly advancing fields in modern medicine. It holds the key to potentially 

unlocking the secrets of diseases that have mystified scientists for 

years, namely, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, diabetes, cardiovascular 

disease, and more. This becomes particularly important as our Nation’s population ages and more and more of our seniors become afflicted with ailments that take a great toll on the families of loved 

ones, as well as on the individuals themselves. 

Scientists are just beginning to scratch the surface of the knowledge and benefits that can be reaped through a thorough understanding of stem cells and their potential for creating breakthroughs in therapeutic disease treatment. 

This hearing will examine some of the most important progress 

being made in the area of embryonic stem cell research, the need 

for new stem cell lines, and the reasons these additional lines 

should receive Federal support. 

Among the elderly, diseases such as diabetes, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and cardiovascular ailments are among the most prevalent and the most costly to the Federal budget and family budgets. 

Together, the estimated annual direct and indirect costs of caring 

for patients with these diseases is $650 billion. Alzheimer’s alone 

is a disease that afflicts one in ten Americans over the age of 65, 

and nearly half of all persons over the age of 85. As baby boomers 

begin to age, the prevalence of Alzheimer’s is expected to grow by 

350 percent, from 4 million Americans today to an estimated 14 

2

million by 2050, which will make it one of the most costly diseases 

in our society. 

The impact on Medicaid and Medicare and our private health 

care system will be enormous. However, if we can find a way to 

delay the onset of Alzheimer’s by just five years, we could reduce 

the number of cases and spending on the disease by more than 

half, by more than 50 percent. In addition, diabetes, 

neurodegenerative, and cardiovascular diseases also happen to be 

areas for which stem cell therapy seems most promising. Although 

a limited number of human embryonic stem lines are eligible for 

use in federally funded research, many scientists are concerned 

about the usefulness of these lines. While some claim a total of 78 

embryonic stem cell lines are listed, in reality only 22 lines are currently available to researchers. Furthermore, scientists have serious concerns about the quality, longevity, and availability of these 

existing lines because they were grown in culture dishes coated 

with mouse cells which have contaminated them. These mouse cells 

helped them to generate, but they also eventually create contamination. 

At the time this method was created, the mouse cells were necessary. However, in a dramatic new achievement earlier this year, 

scientists were successfully able to maintain stem cell lines without 

using animal feeder cells. In order to allow researchers the opportunity to fully explore the possibilities and promise of stem cells, 

we must ensure they have expanded access to these new 

uncontaminated stem cell lines. 

The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, S. 471, introduced by 

Senators Specter, Hatch, Harkin, Kennedy, Feinstein and myself, 

and H.R. 810, introduced by Congressman Castle and Congresswoman DeGette would allow research to receive Federal funding 

for the study of embryonic stem cells derived from excess embryos 

created for fertility treatments and willingly donated by patients. 

Last month, H.R. 810 passed the House on May 24, 2005, by a vote 

of 238–194, and it is now time for the Senate to act. 

I am also currently working on legislation titled ‘‘The Stem Cell 

Research Investment Act,’’ which would buildupon S. 471 to promote cutting-edge research to fight devastating chronic diseases 

and health conditions. Modeled after California’s recently passed 

Proposition 71, the bill encourages States to issue up to $30 billion 

in zero-interest bonds to fund their own stem cell research initiatives and provides bondholders a Federal tax credit in light of interest payments. As with S. 471, such funding could only be used 

for embryonic stem cell research that uses embryos that are bound 

for destruction from fertility clinics donated by patients. 

In the field of medicine, there is no such thing as a Republican 

science or a Democratic science. There is just science. New advances in technology have allowed us to understand the nature of 

the human body like never before, and with it the ability to prolong 

life and to cure disease. Responsible research grounded in the roots 

of scientific principles and conducted with the ultimate goal of saving life must be allowed to flourish. We owe a moral obligation to 

the sufferers of these debilitating diseases and their loved ones to 

provide our best and brightest scientists with the tools they need 

3

to undertake their quest in a safe and ethical environment free 

from unnecessary Government barriers but with moral parameters. 

I eagerly await the testimony of our experts who understand the 

financial, emotional, and physical costs of these diseases and who 

are among the leaders in cutting-edge research that is being done 

in this field. It is my hope that by the end of today’s hearing we 

will have a greater understanding of embryonic stem cell research 

and a deeper appreciation of the incredible potential of this exciting 

branch of medicine. 

It is my privilege now to turn to my colleague and friend, Senator Herb Kohl, the ranking member of this committee. Senator 

Kohl. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HERBERT H. KOHL 

Senator KOHL. We thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

very timely hearing today, and we welcome our witnesses who will 

be testifying today. Every family in America has experienced the 

tragedy of watching a loved one suffer through a deadly or debilitating illness. Diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s take a terrible toll on families’ lives and livelihoods. While we have made 

great strides in biomedical research in recent years, we still do not 

have all the keys to unlock the secrets of disease, and that is why 

the potential of embryonic stem cells is so exciting. Embryonic stem 

cells have the ability to develop into virtually any cell type in the 

human body. Scientists tell us that harnessing the power of these 

cells could one day lead to new treatments and maybe even cures 

for a number of diseases that afflict American families. 

Important research is being done every day on stem cells, and I 

am proud that some of this research is being done at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, which was the first to isolate human 

embryonic stem cells. So we are pleased to have Dr. Su-Chun 

Zhang from the university’s Waisman Center here today to testify 

on the ground-breaking work that he and his colleagues are doing. 

We all understand, of course, that this research is not without 

controversy. We respect the concerns that some people have about 

the use of embryonic stem cells in research, and we agree that we 

must closely monitor this research to ensure that it is done ethically. However, scientists and disease advocates are warning us 

that the current limits on Federal funding for stem cell research 

are seriously inhibiting our potential to find new cures. Without expanded Federal support, we do risk slowing down the tremendous 

progress that could be made to alleviate human suffering. It would 

not be right for the Federal Government to turn it back on the discoveries that expanding stem cell research promises. 

Now more than ever it is important to grasp this opportunity in 

an ethical manner by making sure that potentially life-saving research does keep moving forward. So we look forward to hearing 

from our expert panel today and hearing their recommendations. 

Again, we all thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Kohl. 

We are joined by two of our colleagues, Senator Collins of Maine 

and my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden. So, Senator Collins, you are next, and then Senator Wyden. 

4

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SUSAN M. COLLINS 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to begin by commending you for holding a hearing on an 

issue of profound importance to this country. The title for this 

hearing that you have chosen is highly appropriate. Embryonic 

stem cell research does indeed hold tremendous promise to treat 

and possibly even cure a vast array of devastating diseases and 

conditions. It is a promise that must be explored. From Alzheimer’s 

to Parkinson’s and ALS, to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and 

cancer, this research offers great hope to our seniors and their families. 

For some seniors, these devastating diseases can turn their last 

years of life into a time of suffering and misery. The potential of 

this research to relieve this suffering and misery is far too great 

for us not to explore it. But this research will not just benefit our 

seniors. As the founder and the co-Chair of the Senate Diabetes 

Caucus, I am particularly excited about the promise that stem cell 

research holds for a cure for juvenile diabetes. This disease has had 

such a profound effect on more than 1 million American children 

and their families. It condemns far too many of them to a future 

of heart disease, stroke, kidney failure, blindness, and amputation. 

We simply cannot ignore the potential that stem cell therapy 

holds for these young people, and indeed in two weeks’ time, I will 

be chairing the biennial Children’s Congress where children with 

diabetes come from every State in the Nation. It is so important 

because they put a human face on this debate. 

Of course, we know that this research offers the possibility of recovery or at least better treatment to people of all ages who have 

suffered devastating spinal cord injuries. We are now engaged in 

a great national debate over whether this vital research can proceed at a vigorous pace given the administration’s decision to make 

Federal funding available only for that research using embryonic 

stem cell lines that existed before August 2001. As the chairman 

indicated, many scientists contend that the existing lines are contaminated with mouse cells and that severely compromises their 

potential therapeutic values for use in humans. I look forward to 

hearing the testimony from our experts today on that crucial issue. 

This debate is often portrayed as a choice between scientific advancement on the one hand and medical ethics on the other. I believe that that is a false choice. I believe that we can advance this 

vital research and at the same time maintain the highest ethical 

standards. 

Last month, the House of Representatives took an important step 

in resolving this debate. The legislation passed in the House would 

expand the current restriction on Federal funding for embryonic 

stem cell research to the more than 400,000 cells unused in fertility 

clinics that would be made available by willing donors. I would 

point out that these are cells that otherwise would be discarded. 

Isn’t it far better to put them to work to help advance this research? 

The House legislation is the result of bipartisan cooperation and 

compromise. As the chairman indicated, there is similar legislation 

in the Senate which we have cosponsored along with our colleague 

Senator Specter. This legislation also makes available to researchVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:09 Dec 01, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\23759.TXT SAGING1 PsN: JOYCE
5

ers that vast number of unused cells, and it respects the ethical 

considerations that are such an important part of this research. 

I believe that the ethical thing to do is to move forward with this 

research, and I want to again thank the chairman for his leadership in making this research possible. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Collins. I think the issue is 

often cast as a Republican or a Democrat issue. Actually, I think 

we have proven that this is a human issue. 

Senator Wyden. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RON WYDEN 

Senator WYDEN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 

characterize it as an Oregon issue as well because you have done 

a tremendous job in terms of leading the committee. I also want 

to say how much I appreciate Chris Dudley being here. Chris Dudley is involved in just about every good cause in our home State, 

and we are just thrilled to have him and appreciate all he has 

done. 

Mr. Chairman, I am going to have to be in the Intelligence Committee and I think a couple of other committees in the next 10 minutes, and I am not going to be able to stay. I just wanted to come 

by and make a point or two on behalf of the leadership that you 

are showing. 

The principal thing that I wanted to touch on is that the opponents of embryonic stem cell research seem to be arguing now that 

the reason this research should not go forward is that there are not 

enough medical discoveries or cures using embryonic stem cells. I 

guess if you follow that kind of logic, some of the opponents of embryonic stem cells would have criticized the Wright brothers for not 

launching a moon flight when they took their very first flight. 

The fact of the matter is you have got to let science advance. Scientific research takes time and money to develop treatment and 

cures, and the fact is that embryonic stem cell research has been 

hamstrung by limiting the cell lines and not giving Federal funds 

to non-approved stem cell lines. 

So I think we also ought to note that there is progress being 

made in adult stem cells. It is important that that work continue. 

But in the Commerce Committee, we examined some of the limits 

on what adult stem cells could do, and it is clear that the country 

ought to go farther. 

Now, I would be shocked, I guess, to say that politics is involved. 

We all remember that line from ‘‘Casablanca.’’ But suffice it to say 

nobody can be naive. There is politics in this debate, and I would 

just hope that people would pause a little bit because in an age 

when there is not a lot of bipartisanship, when there are not 

enough legislators who are doing what Chairman Smith is doing, 

what Senator Collins is doing, this is a piece of legislation where 

there is true bipartisan support. I think that that is the case because this country wants science to be science. This country does 

not want science to be seen through a political prism. So what you 

have are Senators who want to pursue science in that kind of approach. 

I commend you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize to our friend, 

Chris Dudley, for not being able to stay throughout the afternoon. 

6

But I know that the Oregon juggernaut, with the chairman and 

Chris Dudley, is going to prosper in terms of advancing this cause, 

and I thank you both for all you are doing, and my colleagues as 

well. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ron. 

We have been joined by Senator Carper of Delaware, so we welcome your statement if you have one. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR THOMAS R. CARPER 

Senator CARPER. I am not from Oregon. [Laughter.] 

But I have been to Oregon, and I must say I liked it a lot. In 

fact, I thought about going to graduate school there when I got out 

of the Navy in California, and they told me they would never let 

me be a Senator, Governor, or any of that stuff. So I decided to find 

a smaller State. But we are glad that you are here and look forward to hearing from you. 

I have a statement I would like to enter for the record, but let 

me just make a brief personal comment if I may. 

My mom passed away a couple of months ago. She had Alzheimer’s disease and congestive heart failure and arthritis and all 

kinds of maladies. She lived to be about 82, a full life, but the last 

6 years she was in a wonderful facility in Ashland, KY, called 

Woodland Oaks, where they took great care of her. She lived close 

to my sister and closer to my mother’s sister. But she had Alzheimer’s disease, and it sucked away her vitality and a special part 

of her life in her later years. Her mom had had Alzheimer’s disease. Her grandmother had Alzheimer’s disease as well. 

As we focus on the issues of stem cell research and try to apply 

the research as we develop it, I think of my mother. I think of my 

mother’s father, who had Parkinson’s disease. I was in born in 

West Virginia, and my grandfather was a butcher. He was kind of 

an amazing guy, and he lived to be about 85 years old. But he 

would drive to work at Patton’s Market, which is one exit off the 

West Virginia Turnpike from Robert C. Byrd Drive. My grandfather would drive up to Harper Road, and his hands were shaking 

just like this. I always remember when I was a little boy going to 

visit him and wondering how will he ever go into the butcher shop 

and not cutoff a finger or a thumb. He would get in the butcher 

shop and he was like a rock for the rest of the day until it came 

time to go home. Then he would have what we would call palsy or 

the trembles. 

I remember my grandfather who made the best of the hand that 

he was dealt and stayed with it for a long, long time. Not everybody, including a fellow I had a chance to spend some time with 

at lunch on Monday in Philadelphia, not everybody is as lucky as 

my grandfather to be able to go that long and that hard. 

Everybody here, probably everybody on the panel, I guess everybody in the room, can talk about their own mom or dad or their 

aunt or uncle or their grandparent and how their lives, their quality of life has been diminished because of their battle with a disease that I think can be tamed, can be cured, or at least delayed 

through the kind of research that would be enhanced by the legislation that my Congressman, Mike Castle, has introduced and 

7

championed in the House. I am pleased to cosponsor it here in the 

U.S. Senate. 

So I would say, Mr. Chairman, thank you for pulling this all together and for letting a couple of guys who are not from Oregon 

say a few words and to say hello and good work. Thanks. Welcome, 

Chris. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Carper, and we will include 

your full statement in the record as well. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR THOMAS CARPER

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on the potential of stem cell 

research, a topic that is very important to many people in Wisconsin. I commend 

you and the Ranking Member for providing leadership on this issue. 

I am pleased that the Aging Committee is providing a forum for some of the country’s leading researchers to speak about the progress they are making with embryonic stem cell research, and the limitations that currently impede their ability to 

further advance this research. 

I am especially proud that Dr. Su-Chun Zhang of the Waisman Center at the University of Wisconsin is here to describe firsthand his experience in using embryonic 

stem cells to further understand degenerative diseases and medical conditions such 

as Parkinson’s, ALS, MS and spinal cord injuries. I thank Dr. Zhang for his contributions to these efforts, and for agreeing to take time from his valuable work to 

appear before this Committee. 

Dr. James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin first broke ground in this 

amazing research, and with the help of talented researchers such as Dr. Zhang, 

Wisconsin continues to be a proud leader in this field. 

Embryonic stem cell research holds the potential for better understanding, and 

possibly developing cures and treatments for, many fatal and debilitating diseases 

and medical conditions. That is why I have cosponsored S. 471, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 introduced by Senators Specter and Harkin. This 

bill would help our nation’s researchers unlock that potential by increasing the 

quantity and quality of stem cells lines available for research. 

There is much work that needs to be done to further understand the role that 

embryonic stem cells can play in providing answers to some of the most troubling 

medical diseases and conditions that affect so many Americans. Limiting our ability 

to find these answers when researchers are only starting to make headway would 

be a huge step backwards for the many Americans who could benefit from this 

groundbreaking research. 

Embryonic stem cell research could very well be the gateway to finding treatments or cures for diabetes, heart disease, ALS, spinal cord injuries and other medical conditions that millions of Americans currently suffer from. I will continue to 

support this incredibly important science which would expand our research horizons, and bring hope to so many people. 

I was very pleased to see stem cell legislation pass the House, and I am proud 

to be part of the bipartisan effort to expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell 

research in the Senate. It is my hope that the Majority Leader will soon bring this 

bill to the Senate floor for a vote, and that the Senate will overwhelmingly pass this 

legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. It is not a requirement to be from Oregon to be 

heard today, but our first witness is from Oregon, and he will be 

joined by a second panel of very distinguished scientists and physicians who will hopefully illuminate us on the promise that embryonic stem cell research may offer. 

To introduce Chris Dudley, I think many of our audience would 

recognize and remember him from his stellar career as an NBA 

center. He was with the Portland Trailblazers through some of 

their brightest days, and after this last season, they could use your 

help again, Chris. But as the owner of the Milwaukee Bucks is 

right here, he probably does not want to see you return. 

8

Chris Dudley understands firsthand the enormous financial, 

physical, and emotional costs of a particular disease, that is, diabetes. He was diagnosed with that affliction at age 16, and yet he 

nevertheless went on to achieve remarkable success in athletics. 

Chris’ desire for every child to succeed regardless of their economic, education, or health liabilities inspired him to create the 

Dudley Foundation in 1994, which includes the Chris Dudley Basketball Camp for Kids with Diabetes in Vernonia, OR. His personal 

story will underscore the importance of exploring all scientific avenues, including human embryonic stem cell research, to prevent 

and find a cure for diabetes. 

Chris, thank you for coming this long way to participate in this 

hearing. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS DUDLEY, DIABETES ADVOCATE, AND 

FORMER CENTER, PORTLAND TRAILBLAZERS, PORTLAND, OR 

Mr. DUDLEY. Thank you. Good afternoon, Senator Smith and 

members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to appear 

before your committee today to tell you about how living with juvenile diabetes has affected my life and the lives of so many children 

that I have met over the years through my foundation and at my 

basketball camp. 

My name is Chris Dudley, and I played professional basketball 

for 16 years with Cleveland, New Jersey, the Portland Trailblazers, 

and the New York Knicks. I am the proud father of three wonderful children ages 6, 5, and 3 and husband to wife Christine. I also 

have juvenile diabetes. 

I was diagnosed at the age of 16. I had the classic symptoms of 

excessive thirst and having to go to the bathroom constantly. My 

uncle also has diabetes, so my dad recognized the symptoms, luckily, and brought me home a test kit, and it showed that my blood 

sugar was extremely high. We immediately went to the hospital, 

and I was diagnosed with diabetes. 

When I first heard the news, I was devastated. I did not really 

know enough about the disease, and I was terrified that I would 

no longer be able to play basketball. In fact, my dad tells the story 

that the first question I asked was would I still be able to play basketball. 

I was fortunate that the doctors and nurses said that I would be 

able to continue to play if I was careful about monitoring my blood 

sugar, and this to me was a tremendous relief. I thought if I can 

keep playing, I can go forward. 

This is not always the case. Many times kids with juvenile diabetes are not encouraged to keep playing sports because of fears of 

what can happen, especially from low blood sugars. I was also fortunate to have a supportive family that encouraged me to continue 

to play basketball and not let diabetes stop me from doing what I 

loved. 

After my diagnosis, I really looked up to people like Bobby 

Clarke, Hall of Fame hockey player for the Philadelphia Flyers, 

who had diabetes and also of a triathlete—I was then living in San 

Diego—who had diabetes. I felt at that time it was a tremendous 

help for me to realize that if Bobby Clarke can play Hall of Fame 

9

hockey and this other person can run a triathlete, then I can play 

JV basketball. 

Ever since that time, I have been an outspoken advocate for encouraging kids with diabetes to pursue their passions—whether it 

be sports or other activities—provided that they take care of their 

diabetes. That being said, that provision is a hard one. Diabetes is 

such a hard disease because you have to stay on top of it every 

hour of every day, or you can face serious complications. It is a disease that is 24/7 and takes no breaks. Diabetes never stopped me 

from playing basketball, but by no means was it easy. There were 

many times when the disease did hinder my performance. 

When I was playing in the NBA, I would have to test my blood 

sugar 14 times on a game day and take multiple insulin shots. 

When you are preparing to play in front of 20,000 people, you want 

your sugar—blood sugar level—to be as close to the ideal as possible. This is very difficult to do, and some days no matter how 

hard you try, it is never perfect. It took a lot of practice and monitoring, but I was able to play to the best of my abilities regardless 

of my diabetes. I was fortunate that my teammates were also supportive. It was through my teammates that I realized how widespread this disease really is. I was amazed at how many teammates would have a father, brother, sister, uncle, grandfather who 

had some connection to diabetes. I was fortunate that I always felt 

there was a great understanding and appreciation of what I had to 

go through every day just to be able to play basketball. 

I also had my battles with diabetes. In college, I was in a car accident. After working out, my blood sugar dropped dangerously low 

and I ran into a parked car. That is one of the dangers of what can 

happen when you have diabetes, and with working out your blood 

sugars can drop dramatically. I have had diabetes for 24 years, and 

I have had that constant worry about the long-term risks and what 

the disease is doing to my body. 

Now that I am retired from the NBA, my passion is my family—

my three children—and advocating on behalf of research to get us 

to a cure for juvenile diabetes as soon as possible and enabling kids 

who already have diabetes to be able to pursue their dreams. I 

started the Dudley Foundation in 1994 and the Chris Dudley Basketball Camp for Kids with Diabetes in Vernonia, OR, in 1994. At 

the camp, I see firsthand what these kids—some of them very 

young—have to go through every day. Some struggle much more 

than others, not because they are being lazy about monitoring their 

blood sugars, but because it is just more difficult for some kids to 

keep their sugar levels in range, as hard as they try. At that age, 

you have hormones, you have stress, colds. Anything can throw 

your blood sugars out of whack. 

When I talk to kids with diabetes and work with them at camp, 

I walk a fine line. I want to show them that the diabetes does not 

have to stop you from doing whatever it is that you want to do; but, 

on the other hand, I know that it’s not easy for them and that they 

will never get a day off from this disease. It is not easy for their 

parents either. Parents of the kids who come to my camp tell me 

that it is the only week throughout the entire year that they can 

sleep through the night without having to get up to check on their 

10

kids and check their blood sugar levels. To me that is just amazing 

as parent. 

I worry every day that one of my kids will be diagnosed with juvenile diabetes. Even though I have been very blessed in my life 

and have been able to achieve some great things even with diabetes, this is not the life I want for my children. I am missing my 

6-year-old son’s kindergarten graduation to be here today, but I explained to him that being in Washington was my opportunity to 

help people understand why a cure for diabetes is so important. I 

want this cure for the children who come to my camp, my children 

and your children. 

Last August, I received an award, a Freedom Corps Award, from 

President Bush for my camp and the foundation. I had the opportunity to travel with President Bush and Leery Bush in Portland 

that day. I told them what it was like to live with juvenile diabetes 

and the struggles the kids who come to my camp face every day. 

I also told them that even though I share and empathize with some 

of their same concerns, I believe that there is an ethical compromise that will allow the tremendous potential of stem cell research to flourish. Research is the only avenue to the cures and 

therapies for diabetes and many other diseases, and we should pursue this promising research aggressively within an appropriate ethical framework. 

I want to be able to tell the children I see—and I see a lot of 

them—with diabetes and tell them with a straight face that in this 

great country we are doing everything possible to find a cure and 

that help is on the way. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity. It has been 

an honor to appear before you today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Chris, just as an Oregonian, I just have to tell 

you how proud I am of what you do and your basketball camp. Obviously, these kids that you take into the camp—do they all have 

childhood diabetes? 

Mr. DUDLEY. Yes, they do. That is a requirement of camp. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is a requirement. 

Mr. DUDLEY. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would you just repeat once again the comment 

of the parents, that they are saying this is the one week in their 

life that they do not have to worry about their children’s blood condition during the middle of the night. 

Mr. DUDLEY. Absolutely. One of the greatest fears of parents is 

that during the night while their child is asleep, they will have a 

blood glucose reaction; their blood sugar will drop during the night. 

So the parents get up and check them during the middle of the 

night. Especially with the younger ones, parents tell us that this 

is the only week that they can sleep through the night because 

they leave these kids with us for the week. It is really two camps 

in one. It is a basketball camp with a basketball staff, and it is a 

diabetes camp with a diabetes staff, and doctors and nurses and 

counselors. We test them during the night, and we take care of everything. In fact, the parents have to check their children into the 

camp, and then they check them out, and they meet with our doctors. 

11

To get back to your point, they feel comfortable leaving their kids 

with us during that week, and this is the only week of the year 

that some of them actually sleep through the night. 

The CHAIRMAN. How many kids do you have? 

Mr. DUDLEY. We have 75 kids, and that is the most we are able 

to have because of just handling the medical requirements, boys 

and girls, 10 through 17. We have figured out that this is the tenth 

year. Throughout the years, we have had a child I think from every 

State in the Union except——

Senator CARPER. Not Delaware? 

Mr. DUDLEY. Mississippi. No, we have had Delaware. [Laughter.] 

Mississippi is the one we have got to work on. I think it was Mississippi and one of the Dakotas. But we have had pretty much the 

whole United States covered. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yours is the only camp in the country of this 

kind? 

Mr. DUDLEY. It is the only camp in the country of its kind that 

is basketball and diabetes. One of the more—there are other diabetes camps, but they are more along the lines of regular camp, arts 

and crafts, and this is more of a sports camp we go after it. It is 

a real basketball camp, and the kids go hard, and they learn how 

to handle their diabetes while going hard. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we are just thrilled that this hearing can 

help spread the message of the remarkable service that you provide, and I cannot thank you enough. I do want to ask you one 

question. I understand you describe yourself somewhat, as I do myself, a pro-life Republican, and sometimes you are asked to justify 

that. I obviously have my own reasons for being supportive of embryonic stem cell research. Could you share with the committee 

why you think it is not inconsistent to be pro-life and pro-embryonic stem cell research? 

Mr. DUDLEY. Yes, I can, and that is obviously not an easy issue. 

When you say pro-life—I try not to get painted into either corner 

but—because I feel like there are exceptions. But for the most part, 

I am a Christian, and I believe in life, as I am sure we all do here 

today. It becomes a difficult question, and I have to wrestle with 

it when taking a stand for this. I think there are—I think the fact 

that these are embryonic cells that are going to be discarded anyway, that it is just a shame and a lost opportunity to not protect 

the life that is already with us today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Chris. 

Senator Kohl. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and it is 

a particular delight, as I pointed out to you before, that we convene 

today, Chris, to have you here, to break bread and to make peace 

with you for all the torment that you inflicted on my team over 

your years in the NBA. [Laughter.] 

As I said to Chris, the only redeeming feature of Chris’ career 

with respect to us is that he could not make a free throw. [Laughter.] 

Mr. DUDLEY. Thanks for bringing that up. 

Senator KOHL. Otherwise, he was and is a great guy and a great 

player. 

12

For those of us who do not know all that much about diabetes 

in terms of its daily treatment, you talked about during your career—is it still true today?—that you need to monitor your condition? Explain that one. Do you need to keep in touch with physicians? 

Mr. DUDLEY. Yes. 

Senator KOHL. How does that work for a person with diabetes? 

Mr. DUDLEY. I take anywhere from four to six insulin shots a 

day, test my blood sugar six to ten times a day. I think I did a little—I got the calculator out last night and figured that over my 

lifetime I have taken over 35,000 shots of insulin. So it is a disease 

that does not go away. 

Senator KOHL. It does not go away. 

Mr. DUDLEY. It does not go away. 

Senator KOHL. Is that true about virtually all people who have 

diabetes? 

Mr. DUDLEY. Well, there are two types of diabetes. There is Type 

I, which is what I have, which is commonly called juvenile diabetes, where my pancreas does not produce any insulin. Type II, 

which is also called adult onset, although that has changed because 

now it is becoming more common with younger and younger—it is 

really becoming an epidemic in this country. Their pancreas produces some insulin, but either not enough or their body is resistant 

to it. A lot of times they can take pills, exercise, diet, and then it 

becomes shots. So there are two types. But my body does not 

produce insulin and will not produce insulin. 

Senator KOHL. Currently is there any hope out there beyond embryonic stem cell research? 

Mr. DUDLEY. Well, that is a tough question because people are 

working on transplants and they are working on different areas, 

and there is hope, but it is not a near-term hope. You know, I have 

had diabetes since 1981, and you always have to be careful about 

saying there is too much hope because a lot of people with diabetes 

have thought that we were that close to a cure many times, and 

that is a tough thing, especially at a younger age, to be told that 

is coming around the corner and then it does not come. So, yes, I 

think there is hope, but how close, I don’t know. This seems to be 

the most promising, the greatest potential Senator Kohl. Out there 

right now. 

Mr. DUDLEY. Out there right now. 

Senator KOHL. So that it is fair to say for those with diabetes 

stem cell research is a huge, huge part of their hopeful future. 

Mr. DUDLEY. Oh, absolutely. I think with diabetes and a number 

of diseases, there is such a tremendous potential with stem cell research that, yes, it is a huge part. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you. 

Mr. DUDLEY. Thank you. 

Senator KOHL. Good to see you again, Chris. 

Mr. DUDLEY. Good to see you, too. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

Mr. Dudley, when I heard your statement about diabetes being 

24/7, I was reminded of the first time that I met a family with a 

son who is age 10 who had diabetes. He looked up at me, and he 

13

said that his greatest wish was that he could just have one day off 

from his diabetes. He said, ‘‘If only I could take Christmas off or 

my birthday off.’’ That just touched me so deeply. In fact, it led me 

to be the founder of the Diabetes Caucus in the Senate, to see this 

10-year-old boy having to struggle with the treatment of his disease 

and never being able to take a day off. So I think your testimony 

just reminded me so much of that. 

It is one thing to ask an adult to struggle with a disease 24/7, 

but to ask a little child to have to bear that just is so painful. It 

is one reason that I have been such an advocate of stem cell research. 

The issue that I want to bring up with you is whether you could 

help us better understand—and I know subsequent witnesses 

will—why stem cell research holds particular promise in the treatment of juvenile diabetes. Is it the hope that there could be islet 

cells produced from stem cells that could then be transplanted? Or 

what is the theory that makes stem cell research particularly important in the treatment of diabetes? 

Mr. DUDLEY. Yes, I would like to hit two points, and the first 

with your last point. I think it is becoming that islet cells are the 

Holy Grail, so to speak, but I better—because we have these three 

gentlemen here, I think they would be better served going into the 

detail on that. I don’t want to be exposed by them later. [Laughter.] 

On your first part about the children, I really—for me I want a 

cure personally, but that is not why I am here, because I have lived 

with it. I want it for the children, because I get so touched by dealing with the parents and the children at camp, it is like you said. 

I have had that same experience, and it really just does, you know, 

melt you down. I really believe we need to do everything possible 

to cure it for this children, because they want just one day, you 

know, to have a normal day. 

You know, I realize—and it is so difficult for them to deal with 

it on a constant level. One of the benefits from the camp that I did 

not know about or did not know how great it would be until I started the camp was a lot of these kids come from cities or towns or 

schools where they are the only one with diabetes. They feel so 

alone out there. They are just battling this and going through it, 

and that is one of the greatest benefits of the camp, was for them 

to see that there are other kids who are wearing the same shoes 

with them, are in the same boat. I think that really helped them. 

But they are all just great, great kids, and I think maybe it is 

something about having to deal with adversity at such a young age. 

But they are tremendous kids, and there is nothing that—I mean, 

there is nothing that would be better than to cure this disease and 

let them live a normal life. I cannot imagine a greater thing. I really appreciate your help, what you have done through the years for 

the Diabetes Caucus. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, and thank you for your testimony 

today. 

Mr. DUDLEY. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. If we find that cure, Chris, I assume that the 

basketball camp will just be more broadly attended. 

Mr. DUDLEY. Exactly. It will be a little bigger. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Carper. 

14

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I ask some serious questions, let me ask one that is not 

so serious. Who are you putting your money on in the NBA finals? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DUDLEY. You know, my pick before it started was San Antonio, so I have got to go with them. I have got to keep going with 

them. 

Senator CARPER. All right. We are going to see some good defense. 

Mr. DUDLEY. We are going to see a lot of good defense. 

Senator CARPER. That is for sure. None of them can make foul 

shots, though. 

Mr. DUDLEY. No—well, a couple of them can. 

Senator CARPER. A more serious question. Going back to your 

childhood, I understand you were diagnosed when you were 16 

with juvenile diabetes. 

Mr. DUDLEY. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. Did you have some inkling beforehand? You did 

not just wake up someday and say, ‘‘Boy, I am thirsty and I have 

got to go to the bathroom.’’ Kind of just tell us how it happened. 

Mr. DUDLEY. I was working, playing basketball every day after 

school, and going to school. It was after the season was over. All 

of a sudden, I just had to start drinking and I was just so thirsty. 

I would come home and, I mean, literally drink half a gallon of 

whatever it was. Usually, especially in 1981, that ‘‘whatever it 

was’’ was Gatorade or Kool-Aid or whatever and it had sugar in it, 

so that made the situation worse. By drinking this, you just have 

to go to the bathroom every 5 minutes and race into the bathroom 

and not feeling well and just know something is definitely wrong. 

I was fortunate that—my dad’s brother has diabetes. I was fortunate in the fact that my father——

Senator CARPER. He had juvenile diabetes? 

Mr. DUDLEY. Yes, he had juvenile diabetes and had struggled 

with it. Fortunately, technology has gotten a little better, but he 

had really struggled with it. My father knew that those were some 

symptoms, and he went to the drug store and got a little home tester and saw that my blood sugar level was sky high and raced me 

to the hospital. I was fortunate that we caught it when we did 

then. There are cases where, because you are so thirsty, people 

pass out and go into a coma because they just keep drinking, and 

what they are drinking has sugar in it and is just making the situation worse and worse. The reason you are so thirsty is your body 

is trying to flush out that sugar, and so it is really just trying to 

do it but it cannot. 

Senator CARPER. OK. I think you said that for kids who have juvenile diabetes, their pancreases do not create insulin. Your pancreas created no insulin or small amounts or diminishing amounts 

over time? How did it work? 

Mr. DUDLEY. It is my understanding that it produces no insulin. 

It just for whatever reason stops producing insulin. Where people 

with Type II diabetes produce some insulin, are capable of producing insulin, Type I diabetics to my understanding, there is no 

insulin; or at least if there is, it is so negligible it does not make 

a difference. 

15

Senator CARPER. For a person whose pancreas produces no insulin, how would, in theory, embryonic stem cell research applied actually make a difference? 

Mr. DUDLEY. Well, again, I think this will get touched on later, 

but I believe it is going to be to transplant islet cells which help 

produce the insulin. So by having those transplants, they will be 

able to make my body have the capability of producing insulin. 

Senator CARPER. You mentioned at some point in your testimony 

about flying out, I think you said, to Oregon with President and 

Mrs. Bush? 

Mr. DUDLEY. I was in Portland, OR, and when the President 

traveled in different States, they recognize—it is part of the Freedom Corps Act, and I was recognized for the State of Oregon. So 

I met him and the First Lady in August of last year, and I brought 

out one of my campers and we went out and met the President. 

Then I was able to travel with him a little bit—not with him but 

with the party. I was able to talk to the First Lady a little bit 

about it. She had just gone through a tragic loss, I believe, at that 

time. I think it was her father. So we were able to talk about the 

issue, and she was very sympathetic and understanding. Obviously 

there are differences, but it is kind of my belief that this is not a 

partisan issue. It is a scientific issue, and there has got to be a way 

of figuring it. There has got to be a compromise in there somewhere that makes sense to help people. 

Senator CARPER. Some of us think that the compromise crafted 

by my friend and colleague in the House, Mike Castle, comes pretty 

close to a fair compromise. I do not know how familiar you are with 

this, but——

Mr. DUDLEY. You know, I have looked at it, I mean the rough 

sketch of it, and I think it makes a lot of sense. I really do. I think 

my feeling is that if you are going to take a hard line against it, 

then you have got to get rid of in vitro in the first place, that it 

is all or nothing; that if you are doing in vitro, then it makes sense 

to use these excess embryos for scientific research. If you follow the 

argument that every embryo should be used, then we should not 

have in vitro in the first place. That is kind of where I fall on it. 

Senator CARPER. One last question if I could, Mr. Chairman, and 

this may be a question that would be better directed to our next 

panel of witnesses. But let me just run it by you, and if you have 

any thoughts on it, fine. If not, we will just hold it in abeyance for 

now. But with regards to adult and cord blood stem cells, I am a 

layman at this sort of thing, as others are in the room, but any 

thoughts with respect to the kind of benefits that they may be able 

to provide and may not be able to provide in comparison to embryonic stem cells? 

Mr. DUDLEY. Yes, sure. From what I understand, they hold potential but not nearly as much, that they are not as—I don’t know 

the terms, but multifaceted. They are not as able to become as 

many things. There are a lot more issues with them, and it is not 

something that I think should be either/or. I think it should be 

both. I think you should look at both. I think you have to go with 

the most promising, which is what we are talking about today, but 

that does not mean drop the other ones, because adult stem cell I 

believe has been around for quite some time, and it has some purVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:09 Dec 01, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\23759.TXT SAGING1 PsN: JOYCE
16

poses but does not hold nearly the potential that what we are talking about today does. 

Senator CARPER. Well, by watching you testify, I get to see some 

of the next panel of witnesses behind you, and it is interesting 

watching them nodding their heads. You might have gotten it 

right. 

Thanks so much for being here, and thank you for the example 

you provide for all of us in what you are doing for a lot of kids. 

Mr. DUDLEY. Thank you for having me. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have been joined by another First Lady, the 

Senator from New York. Senator Clinton, if you have a statement 

and/or questions, we would be happy to receive them. 

Senator Clinton. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask unanimous consent to submit my statement for the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Clinton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

I’d like to thank Senators Smith and Kohl for convening today’s hearing on the 

promise of embryonic stem cell research. Like them, I am a cosponsor of S. 471, the 

Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. The House companion bill, H.R. 810, 

passed that chamber last month, and I would urge Senate leadership to bring it to 

the floor as quickly as possible. 

When the promise of embryonic stem cell research became apparent in the 1990s, 

the Clinton Administration, working through the National Bioethics Advisory Commission and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), examined the ethical and medical issues involved with such research. 

In September 1999, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission released its report, ‘‘Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cells Research.’’ In this report, it recommended that research using cells from embryos created, but not used for, infertility treatment, should be eligible to receive federal funding. 

By August of 2000, the NIH had released guidelines for research using stem cells. 

These guidelines would have allowed funding for research from lines derived from 

embryos voluntarily donated, with no coercion or financial incentives, by couples 

who had determined, after informed consent, that such embryos would not be implanted or otherwise used in their fertility treatments—in short, embryos that 

would, if not used for research, be discarded. 

And these recommendations are followed in S. 471, which provides for the funding 

of research conducted in an ethical manner according to these guidelines—that is, 

research on lines derived from embryos created for fertility treatments and voluntarily donated by parents. 

But, because of this Administration’s policy, which prohibits federal funding of research on any stem cell lines created after August 9, 2001, we are prohibited from 

funding research that would meet the high ethical standards developed by both the 

NIH and independent scientists. 

Instead, federally funded scientists, some of whom are here today to testify about 

their work, are limited to using slightly over 20 stem cell lines, instead of the 78 

lines originally thought to be available. And not all of these lines are suitable for 

research. Some of them may be contaminated with mouse feeder cells, which can 

increase the risk of creating strains of diseases which can more easily pass from 

mice to humans. 

It’s clear that the Administration’s policy is far more restrictive than it appeared 

when first announced. And the limited number of cells available for federal funding 

means that we are not fully achieving the promise of these cells for research into 

many chronic, debilitating and fatal conditions. 

And this delay is hurting millions of Americans—those living with Parkinson’s, 

Alzheimer’s and diabetes, as well as their friends, families and caregivers. We have 

the potential to develop treatments, even cures, for these diseases, but we can’t 

move forward if we don’t have new cells. 

The Administration’s stem cell policy is not just limiting our ability to discover 

new treatments for diseases. It is a case where ideology is impending science. Without access to federal funds for embryonic stem cell research, our scientists are fallVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:09 Dec 01, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\23759.TXT SAGING1 PsN: JOYCE
17

ing behind, as researchers in South Korea and other countries make advances that 

our scientists simply cannot. 

I look forward to hearing both the scientific and the patient perspective from our 

panelists today, and I hope that with their input, we will learn more about the 

promise of this research to create medical breakthroughs for many diseases.

Senator Clinton. Mr. Dudley, I want to thank you for your very 

thoughtful testimony and, more than that, for your example in your 

work. You have great intellectual and moral authority in how you 

are addressing this issue, and I agree with you that we have a tremendous opportunity here. Starting back in 1999, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission came up with the formulation that we 

are discussing now about using excess embryos that were created 

through in vitro fertilization so long as the donors with informed 

consent agreed that they could be used for scientific research as opposed to being destroyed. The NIH guidelines in 2000 really ratified the Bioethics Commission report. 

I think that there is a growing consensus in the country that 

really does cross every kind of line one can imagine, particularly 

partisan lines, that this is a very promising area that there is an 

appropriate ethical framework for us to follow in engaging in this 

research. S. 471, which a number of us sponsor, which would put 

into law the advice of the NIH and the Bioethics Commission of 5 

and 6 years ago, I think would be a tremendous step forward. I believe if we can be successful in making that case and passing legislation, as the House recently did, I think you will really be entitled 

to share much of the credit for that. We can then hope that we can 

get about doing the research and finding the cures for diabetes and 

other diseases. 

So I just want to thank you for taking your personal story and 

your celebrity and telling it to the world and running the camp for 

the children. It means a great deal. We are very grateful to you. 

Mr. DUDLEY. Well, thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Chris, thank you so very much. God bless you 

and your work. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dudley follows:]

18


23759.001
19


23759.002
20

The CHAIRMAN. We will now call forward our second panel. We 

are very fortunate to have a very distinguished group. Lawrence S. 

Goldstein is a Ph.D. from the University of California-San Diego, 

School of Medicine; and Doug Doerfler is the president and CEO 

of MaxCyte in Gaithersburg, MD, testifying on behalf of the Biotechnology Industry Organization; and then there will be John 

Gearhart, a Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins University, Department of 

Medicine, Institute for Cell Engineering, Baltimore, MD; and SuChun Zhang, M.D., Assistant Professor of Anatomy and Neurology, 

Stem Cell Research Program at the University of Wisconsin. 

We welcome you all. 

We have by video Lawrence S. Goldstein. We will start with him 

and then go to you, Doctor. So, Dr. Goldstein, if you can hear me, 

we thank you for taking the time to participate in this hearing, and 

we will be pleased to receive your testimony now. 

We are just working on the sound a little bit. Now we have got 

it. Go right ahead. 

STATEMENT OF LARRY GOLDSTEIN, PH.D., UNIVERSITY OF 

CALIFORNIA-SAN DIEGO, SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, SAN DIEGO, 

CA; REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR CELL 

BIOLOGY 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. You can hear me? 

The CHAIRMAN. We can hear you. 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. Great. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I want to thank you for inviting me to testify today, and 

in particular I want to thank you for letting me testify by videoconference. I am a professor of cellular and molecular medicine at 

UC-San Diego. I am an investigator with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. My research that is relevant to today’s hearing is focused on understanding the molecular mechanisms that are used 

to move vital materials inside neurons, brain cells, and we study 

and are trying to learn how failures of those movements contribute 

to the development of diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease, Huntington’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and perhaps others, including mad cow disease. 

Now, before I tell you about my science, I do want to just take 

a moment and thank you, Senator Smith, and your colleagues 

there for your longstanding support of the Federal investment in 

biomedical research and, in particular, for your leadership in developing Federal funding, we hope, for broader areas of human embryonic stem cell research. I respect your courage on this issue. I know 

it is not easy. 

With respect to the science, I want to discuss how my research 

is trying to take advantage of the enormous scientific and medical 

opportunity provided by human embryonic stem cells. I do want to 

be cautious. I want to stress that scientific progress in the fight 

against these diseases, particularly Alzheimer’s disease, is very difficult. This is a hard problem, and sometimes our advances are 

agonizingly slow, even when we have the best tools available to us. 

Importantly, it is very hard to guarantee the rate at which we can 

progress. Nonetheless, I and many of my colleagues think that 

human embryonic stem cells potentially hold the key to major adVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:09 Dec 01, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\23759.TXT SAGING1 PsN: JOYCE
21

vances in the search for new understanding of and new treatments 

for these terrible diseases. 

Now, for many diseases, including, for example, juvenile diabetes, as Mr. Dudley just testified about, there is great enthusiasm 

for using human embryonic stem cells to replace cells that are lost 

in disease. For Alzheimer’s disease, however, I think that there 

may be an even more powerful approach to the use of human embryonic stem cells to develop new understanding and new therapies. That is what I want to talk about today—another way of taking advantage of this enormous scientific opportunity. 

Now, before doing that, I need to explain why it is so hard to 

learn what happens, what goes wrong in brain cells in brain diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease. The bottom line in a sense and 

an important basic principle is that we can rarely, if ever, do the 

kinds of biochemical and cellular experiments on brain cells of 

human patients while they are still alive and while they are still 

in the earliest and, we hope, treatable stages of the disease. I think 

you can understand why a patient might not be willing to give 

their brains to experiments before they have died of the disorder. 

They still need their brain, after all. 

So much of what we learn and can learn about the basic cell biology and biochemistry of brain cells that have this disease comes 

from studying brain cells from people who have died of the disease 

already and, hence, were in late stages. The problem is that we 

then end up studying the cells in the brain after most of the damage has already happened. If you think about it, this is in some 

ways like trying to detect and prevent, to learn to detect and prevent plane crashes by studying the pattern of wreckage on the 

ground after planes have already crashed. There is a great deal 

that is missing. 

What we really need in a sense is the black box. We need the 

black box to reveal what went wrong in the earliest stages of the 

disease, the nature of the cellular changes and malfunctions, so 

that we can then learn to treat or prevent these diseases. So in our 

search for understanding of Alzheimer’s disease, we are effectively 

looking for the black box of this disorder. 

The question then is how to find that because, after all, we need 

to learn what those early changes are so that we might learn to 

fix them. 

Now, a very important approach that we have used for the past 

decade in the fight against Alzheimer’s disease is to take advantage of the existence of very rare forms of the disease that are 

caused by large genetic changes that give rise to what we call hereditary Alzheimer’s disease. These large genetic changes are in 

many cases known. So what we can do is we can take these large 

genetic changes, and we can introduce them into laboratory animals such as mice. We can then study the brain cells from these 

mice and learn what cellular changes and what changes in the 

brain happen in these mice that have these large-scale genetic 

changes that cause Alzheimer’s disease in people. 

The problem is that while we have learned a great deal from this 

approach—and, indeed, there are many ideas that my lab and others have generated from this approach—I am sure you realize that 

people are not just big mice, and there are many important difVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:09 Dec 01, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\23759.TXT SAGING1 PsN: JOYCE
22

ferences in the physiology of our cells and our brains that lead us 

to need to test ideas that come from studying mice in human people, human patients, and particularly if we are going to develop 

treatments and drugs. Of course, the question then is how to do 

that, and that is where human embryonic stem cells provide what 

I think is going to be an incredibly important tool for doing this. 

This is what we are trying to do now in my laboratory. 

What we are trying to do is to learn to take these human embryonic stem cells and invert them into the brain cells, the types of 

brain cells that die and fail to function properly in the earliest 

stages of Alzheimer’s disease. Some of the properties of these cells 

make it possible for us to make the genetic changes, the large genetic changes in these cells that cause hereditary Alzheimer’s disease in people. So what we can then do with these brain cells in 

a dish that have Alzheimer’s disease because of the genetic changes 

is to study them at their earliest stages and test our ideas that 

come from studying mice. Ultimately, we think, as we learn which 

ideas are truly correct, which I hope we will do in the next few 

years, we can use these cells, we believe, to begin testing and developing new drugs that we can use to treat this terrible disorder, 

because as you know, we have very little in the way of drugs to 

treat Alzheimer’s disease. 

Now, there is a second problem in treating and understanding 

diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease where human embryonic stem 

cells also have a major contribution to potentially make, and that 

comes from the observation that most Alzheimer’s disease is what 

we call sporadic. It is not caused by the large genetic changes that 

are strictly hereditary. Instead, it appears to occur almost randomly. However, there is a great deal of evidence that suggests 

that each one of us has different genetic susceptibility or potential 

genetic resistance to the development of this disorder. We think 

that there are many small genetic changes that each of us harbors 

in different combinations that interact together or interact with the 

environment to cause us to either develop or not develop this disease. 

The problem is that we do not have a way to study this major 

form of the disease in animals. It is a huge limitation. These embryonic stem cells, however, potentially give us a way to crack that 

problem because each different embryonic stem cell line has different combinations of these small genetic changes. We think that 

we can convert those cells, these different cell lines, to the brain 

cells that malfunction in this disease and study how those small 

genetic changes lead to the different cell behavior, cell function in 

the disease that causes those symptoms. This is where the availability of many different embryonic stem cell lines may turn out to 

be crucial in the fight against this disorder because we can begin 

to evaluate how our different genetic constitutions confer susceptibility or resistance to this disorder and potentially teach us how to 

predict which people will respond to different types of treatment or 

for whom a particular drug will not work and, thus, help us both 

in the development of clinical trials, the development of drugs, and 

not treating people with drugs that are not going to help them. 

Now, obviously, these are very difficult goals. We have to work 

very hard to get there, and we are going to need far more than a 

23

single scientist laboring in San Diego to make the kinds of breakthroughs that are going to be needed on this one disorder. 

I want to close with just saying that the ideas that I have just 

described and the approaches that I have just described for Alzheimer’s disease will, I believe, be very valuable in the fight 

against Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease, Lou Gehrig’s 

disease, and other neurodegenerative diseases where we do not 

even understand them well enough to give them a name. But I 

think in the future, if my colleagues and I have the opportunity to 

do this, we are prepared to devote our lives to solving these problems using these methods. 

Thank you for listening to my testimony today, and I would be 

happy to answer questions when you have them. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldstein follows:]

24


23759.003
25


23759.004
26


23759.005
27

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Goldstein, I think in the interest of the time 

we have on this video link, my colleagues and I will ask questions 

to you now before going to our next panel members. 

Dr. Goldstein, obviously California has passed a bond initiative, 

and it is not illegal to do embryonic stem cell research in the 

United States. Has that already provided you additional lines? Is 

that working? Even if it is working, is there value in the Federal 

Government playing a role through NIH and other of our research 

institutions? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. Yes, Senator, that is an excellent question. California is just getting ready and beginning to establish the mechanisms for issuing funding. But I think there are many important 

roles—in fact, a much more important role for the Federal Government to play relative to the State governments. 

First of all, even the availability of State funding in California 

will not solve many of the problems. The Federal Government has 

been a longstanding funder of basic biomedical research since the 

Second World War. This is the genius of our system, that the Federal Government has funded research throughout our Nation, and 

most of our best scientists are funded by Federal funds—their 

equipment, their labs. They all have Federal funds in them. So 

what we are faced with in California is potentially building separate facilities, which we can do, but it is an enormous waste of resources that could go instead to the fight against this disease. 

Second, as much as I love California and as much as I believe 

that the very best scientists in the world are here in California, I 

will concede that there are other excellent scientists in other States 

around the Nation. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would they be in Oregon? I am just curious. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. There are some very excellent scientists in Oregon. Now, we may try to recruit them from Oregon if something 

is not done to enable them to work in this important field. The 

Federal Government has an enormous role to play in ensuring that 

our best scientists, regardless of where they are located, can participate in the fight against this disorder, because, again, we do not 

want just one scientist doing this. We want dozens, hundreds, taking advantage of these opportunities and making progress. 

The CHAIRMAN. Relative to other countries who may be pursuing 

this—specifically in Europe and Japan I am aware of—what is the 

importance of the U.S. Government participating along with other 

nations? The same logic holds? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. Well, I think it is partly the same answer, and 

it is partly that in the drive to develop uniform international ethical standards, both for the treatment of human subjects and for 

the development of therapies, I think that the United States has 

a very important leadership role to play, which it has played historically. 

I will also note that there is an enormous economic interest here. 

The United States has a positive balance of trade in this area of 

its economy, and to be honest and blunt, if I look ahead 10 years 

from now, I would rather have my children selling therapies to the 

rest of the world as opposed to buying them from the rest of the 

28

world. I would be loath to see the United States cede its historical 

lead in this field. 

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, I understand that over 100 new stem cell 

lines have been developed since August of 2001 and that some of 

these lines are disease specific. Can you tell me what it means to 

have a disease-specific stem cell line and what this means to a researcher like yourself? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. Well, for the case of Huntington’s disease, that 

is perhaps the easiest to understand because I gather that one of 

those lines or a few of those lines have the major genetic change 

that causes Huntington’s disease, a terrible disorder where the 

brain malfunctions and people have movement and cognitive disturbances. 

The ability to develop brain cells from those cells that have those 

genetic changes will let us understand what fails early in the disorder and could be an incredibly important tool in solving the problems of that disease. 

Similarly, for Alzheimer’s disease one approach is to introduce 

known genetic changes. But, of course, the ability to have stem cell 

lines that are patient or person specific allows us to compare how 

that person’s disease has developed in their adult state with how 

we can study the biology of those brain cells that have the identical 

genetic constitution in the laboratory and really learn what are the 

nature of the cellular changes that cause the dysfunction, that 

cause the failure that leads to the inability of these people to remember, to think, to speak, any other terrible symptom with the 

disorder. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are there specific experiments that scientists 

want to do but cannot do now because of the limitation on federally 

approved lines? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. I think that nobody knows the answer to that, 

but I think in some ways it is a question of rate. The current system in my view—and I will be blunt about this—is incredibly clumsy. It turns scientists such as myself into lawyers and accountants 

to navigate the very complicated licensing, patenting, and, of 

course, separation issues if one wants to work with more than just 

the approved cell lines. Of course, I do want to work with more 

than the approved cells lines. We have established methods for 

doing that in my laboratory. I am in a very unusual and fortunate 

situation because of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute that I 

can do that. But most of my colleagues cannot, and so they are, as 

has often been said in this debate, working with one hand tied behind their back. Of course, you can make progress with one hand. 

I would rather have two. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Doctor. 

Senator Kohl. 

Senator KOHL. Dr. Goldstein, in your opinion, what will happen 

to your research and that of others in our public institutions if embryonic stem cell research is forced to be conducted largely in the 

private sector or in other countries? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. Well, I think that those are two somewhat different issues. The private sector I think is unlikely to tackle many 

of these problems in the way that we will in the academic sector. 

The kind of approach that I described in trying to understand and 

29

develop new treatments for Alzheimer’s disease is in many ways a 

longer-time-frame approach than the private sector with its quarterly reports and its inexorable bottom line can do. They will have 

the kinds of limitations that academic scientists such as myself will 

not have. So I think if you limit this to the private sector, it will 

eventually happen perhaps, but it will happen much slower. I think 

the issue really is one of time and delay. 

Suppose, for example, that it takes 10 years to get to the point 

where we have some new drugs from this approach. That is a long 

time. On the other hand, if we delay 5 years before initiating that 

approach or we have in place restrictions that add 5 years to that 

time line, that is millions of people who will suffer and die before 

we have an opportunity to treat them. You add delay on at the end. 

That is the inexorable and terrible problem of the political situation that exists in this country now with this vital area of research. 

Now, with respect to other countries, I have a great deal of respect for my colleagues in other countries. But I also have national 

pride. I believe in the enormous energy and creativity of the American scientific community, and I believe that things will happen 

much, much faster with the participation, the full participation of 

the scientists in this Nation. 

Senator KOHL. States like California and my own State of Wisconsin are moving forward with their own initiatives to encourage 

and provide funding for stem cell research in the absence of a 

strong Federal policy. With no coordinated Federal oversight or 

strategy, are we at some risk for creating duplicative research efforts in the different States? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. I think that is absolutely a danger, as well as a 

danger of not being able to freely exchange materials, of a patchwork of national regulation where what we can do in one place is 

different from what we can do in another place. I mean, it creates 

an enormously complicated playing field. 

I think you have to remember that science is not the sort of ivory 

tower scientist laboring in isolation. We are a very interactive profession, and that interaction allows progress to proceed more rapidly because we are very open with communication of our ideas and 

our materials in most cases. When Government policies restrict 

that interaction and our ability to exchange materials and ideas, 

things go very much more slowly and incredibly inefficiently. It is 

a waste of valuable human and financial resources to proceed in 

that manner. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Clinton. 

Senator Clinton. Thank you very much, and thank you, Dr. Goldstein. 

I co-chair the Senate’s Alzheimer’s Task Force, and I want to 

thank you for the work that you are doing in this area. In your 

opening testimony, you discuss sporadic Alzheimer’s disease which 

may be caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. Can you please discuss the ways that stem cell research may 

help us understand how genetic changes are effected by our environment? Will this type of research result in information that can 

contribute to our public health efforts to try to prevent diseases? 

30

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. That is an excellent question, Senator Clinton, 

and I think you have really summarized the value of this approach. 

Using human genetic methods in large human populations, there 

are a great number of small genetic changes that have been identified in different genes where there is statistical evidence that those 

small changes may predispose someone to the development of this 

disease either on their own or perhaps in combination with environmental factors. But it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to 

evaluate how those genetic changes affect the behavior of the 

human brain cells that fail in Alzheimer’s disease. So the availability of brain cells that have those changes, which we believe we 

can get through the manipulation of these human embryonic stem 

cells, will let us study how those brain cells differ from people who 

did not develop the disease, whose genotypes or genetic constitution did not lead them to develop the disease. We can compare the 

behavior of those cells to cells that have the large-scale genetic 

changes and ask what are the physiological similarities and differences and, yes, the identity of those genes—for example, a gene 

involved in cholesterol metabolism or a gene involved in the response to foreign pathogens in the immune system. Studying how 

those things behave in culture gives us important clues about the 

environmental insults that may tip a cell over the edge into the 

disease stage because of its unique genetic constitution. 

Senator Clinton. Dr. Goldstein, I appreciate your describing for 

us the problems that American scientists are having because of the 

lack of any Federal policy that really not only provides permission 

but a framework in which work can continue on embryonic stem 

cells. 

There is a flip side to that which I find equally disturbing and 

it does not get much attention. Isn’t it the case that right now, in 

the absence of any regulation other than the President’s Executive 

Order confining research to a limited number of stem cell lines and 

prohibiting any Federal funding from being used for any further 

experimentation, there are no rules governing what the private sector does? Right now we have sort of an open door to private sector 

research. For all we know, if someone has enough money, they 

could be engaged in reproductive cloning as we speak. They could 

be engaged in all kinds of research that we might find ethically 

and morally abhorrent. But because we do not have a legal framework, we have no prohibitions against what goes on in the private 

sector. 

Am I correct in that conclusion? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. I think that you have made an excellent point, 

and with the exception of a few States, such as California, that 

have put in place strong legal frameworks for proceeding, strong 

legal prohibitions on the kinds of activities you describe, both in 

the public and private sector. Nationally, we lack that kind of uniform framework, and, indeed, there is a vacuum in many places 

where unethical or perhaps unreasonable things could proceed in 

the private sector. 

You know, with recombinant DNA, gene splicing technology provides us with a good example of how the opposite can happen, 

which is that when the Federal Government plays an active, involved, and informed role, the public sector develops guidelines, 

31

regulations, and practices that we practice in the public sector. The 

fact is that even in the absence of direct law and regulation, the 

private sector companies are staffed by people that come out of our 

laboratories. As scientists, we actually embrace regulation. It is not 

that we want to operate in a completely uninhibited way. We welcome reasonable regulation. We want to participate in the development of those regulations so that they are workable as well as ethically and financially reasonable. The private sector in my experience is happy to follow along and adopt those, either directly 

through the process of law and regulation, or indirectly, as happened in recombinant DNA, because our people who were trained 

in the public sector moved into the private sector. 

So I hope that we can find a way through this impasse so that 

we can develop standards, perhaps regulation, that allow the public 

and private sectors to operate with an agreed-upon set of guidelines. 

I will just add, of course, that even in the absence of Federal regulation, the National Academy of Sciences just released a wonderful set of recommended guidelines and regulation which I hope, 

even in the absence of Federal regulation—although I hope there 

will be some—our institutions are moving to adopt in many cases, 

and those guidelines I commend to the committee to have a look 

at because they are excellent. 

Senator CLINTON. Thank you, Dr. Goldstein. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have been joined by Senator Lincoln of Arkansas. Senator Lincoln? 

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Dr. 

Goldstein. 

Just briefly, I know that in some of the testimony from our other 

panelists here, there is some mention about the impact of embryonic stem cell research and its positive impact on the research 

using umbilical cord and bone marrow. At the University of Arkansas Medical Sciences now in Little Rock, we have become a leader 

in some of the blood stem cell transplants. I visited one of the research physicians and really was amazed at how much progress we 

have made in that area of adult stem cell transplants and the abilities that exist there. 

Do you have any comments to elaborate on how embryonic stem 

cell research will further the development of this other type of research? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. Yes. Although this is not my specific area of 

focus and expertise, there are two areas where I know there is 

enormous interest and promise for embryonic stem cell research to 

make an impact on cord blood and blood-forming stem cell transplants such as those you have described. Those kinds of transplants, as you know, are enormously valuable. If you have a disease that can be treated in this way, it is an enormously powerful 

way to do it. 

However, there are many people for whom we cannot find genetic 

matches to give them a cord blood or bone marrow transplant. For 

those people, we will need perhaps embryonic stem cell-derived 

cells for transplant in the future unless the genetic match issues 

can be solved in some way. 

32

The second thing is that one can learn a great deal, if you will, 

about the properties, the behavior of cellular materials, and the 

ability to use them in different ways, much as you might study the 

properties of metal if you were trying to learn how to fix automobile engines. That tells you a great deal about how to approach 

these problems. Human embryonic stem cells have a great deal to 

teach us about how cord blood stem cells and other stem cells can 

work in the therapeutic setting and perhaps how they can fail in 

the disease setting. 

So scientists such as myself would never say that one should do 

one or the other. I am an enormous fan of adult stem cell research 

for the areas where it can make an enormous impact. I would not 

say that we should not do that. However, it is, again, the one-handtied-behind-your-back problem. We will do better with two hands, 

and those two hands can work together in order to solve some of 

these terrible problems. 

Senator Lincoln. Thank you so much. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks, Senator Lincoln. 

Dr. Goldstein, you have been a tremendous help to us and have 

added measurably to the debate that is going on on Capitol Hill, 

and we thank you so much for your time and your expertise and 

all the work that you are doing. All the best. 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will turn now to our next witness, Doug 

Doerfler of the Biotechnology Industry Organization and president 

and CEO of MaxCyte in Gaithersburg, MD. The mike is yours. 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS A. DOERFLER, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MAXCYTE, GAITHERSBURG, MD; 

ON BEHALF OF THE BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY ORGANIZATION 

Mr. DOERFLER. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 

members of the committee. My name is Doug Doerfler. I am president and CEO and founder of MaxCyte, a biotechnology company 

located in Gaithersburg, MD. 

The CHAIRMAN. You may want to pull the mike a little closer to 

you. 

Mr. DOERFLER. I am also here representing the Biotechnology Industry Organization, better known as BIO. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today on the 

promise of embryonic stem cell research and in support of Senate 

bill 471, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. 

My company uses cell-loading and gene delivery technologies to 

develop cell-based therapies. Because many diseases and disabilities are caused by cellular malfunction, medical breakthroughs in 

the treatment of serious diseases and disabilities can be developed 

through these cell-based technologies. At MaxCyte, we are working 

to develop therapeutic products for treating pulmonary disease, oncology, infectious disease, autoimmune disease, diabetes, and other 

neuroscience diseases. 

I want to make two points at the outset of my testimony. First, 

my company does not perform embryonic stem cell research. SecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:09 Dec 01, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\23759.TXT SAGING1 PsN: JOYCE
33

ond, BIO supports all types of stem cell research, including research using cord blood and adult stem cells. 

Mr. Chairman, I am here today to say that to help speed the development of all types of cell-based therapies, we need expanded 

Federal support of embryonic stem cell research. That is why BIO 

supports S. 471. 

Scientists have found that existing cell lines are not genetically 

diverse, are difficult to grow, and may be contaminated with animal proteins. Your bill appropriately makes more cell lines eligible 

for Federal funding while creating a framework to ensure that research is performed ethically. 

In particular, BIO strongly supports development of NIH guidelines. We believe this is an important step and is similar to the 

way the Asilomar Conference helped ease public anxiety and spur 

the development of recombinant DNA technology during the 1970’s. 

This committee has heard and will continue to hear about the potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research regarding cures 

and treatments for diseases and disabilities. Embryonic stem cells 

have the potential to be turned into any of the body’s cell types, 

meaning they could possibly be developed into replacement cells 

and tissue for patients whose own cells are malfunctioning. This 

has not yet been shown to be true for adult stem cells. 

It is that potential that has thus far generated the most enthusiasm amongst the scientific community because it shows promise 

toward developing breakthrough treatments for a variety of intractable diseases, including various cancers, diabetes, Parkinson’s, 

Alzheimer’s. We need to know these answers. 

However, I would like to discuss other reasons to support this research. 

It is important to emphasize that embryonic stem cell research 

will have a positive impact on all types of therapeutic research and 

will further the development of cell-based therapies. 

Embryonic stem cell research will lead to greater scientific understanding of cell differentiation. This cell differentation is the 

process by which cells change from a stem cell to perhaps a nerve 

cell, a brain cell, or a blood cell to perform certain critical functions 

in our body. 

In addition, if this bill is enacted, more genetically diverse cell 

lines will be available for funding. Scientists will then be able to 

learn more about how and when genetic anomalies cause cells to 

malfunction. This will help researchers understand the root causes 

of many diseases and, therefore, lead to the development of truly 

breakthrough therapies. 

Expanded support of embryonic stem cell research could also go 

a long way toward reducing the time and expense needed for drug 

development. New chemical or biological compounds meant to treat 

diseases could be tested in specific human cells prior to their use 

in live human beings, accelerating development, reducing costs, 

and reducing adverse events in patients. 

Mr. Chairman, I have heard opponents of your bill say that it is 

not necessary to expand Federal support for stem cell research because many States are moving forward with their own programs. 

Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no substitute 

for increased commitment from the NIH. In addition to funds, the 

34

NIH provides the infrastructure and a uniform set of rules for the 

scientific community—especially as basic research is turned into 

therapies. Forcing companies to deal with a patchwork of State regulations and requirements will create huge inefficiencies and confusion that will hamper capital formation and inhibit critical collaborations and slow development of treatments for patients. 

In conclusion, embryonic stem cell research holds the promise to 

dramatically improve scientists’ ability to develop cures and treatments for disease. Whether these therapies are the direct result of 

this research or come about due to the advances in scientific knowledge that will come from this work, our Nation must increase its 

commitment. 

BIO supports your legislation, Mr. Chairman, because it will expand Federal support for this important research. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony today, 

and thank you for your courage in handling this very sensitive 

issue. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Doerfler follows:]

35


23759.006
36


23759.007
37


23759.008
38


23759.009
39

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you so much for your presence here 

today and your contribution to our committee. 

Mr. Doerfler, this is not the first time new medical technology 

was considered controversial. There are a number of medical technologies considered routine today that were initially criticized and 

opposed. I am thinking specifically of recombinant DNA. Do you recall that that was criticized in earlier days as well? 

Mr. DOERFLER. That is right. That recombinant DNA was the 

focus of a number of concerns, certainly in Boston where people 

were concerned about DNA being placed in drains of apartment 

buildings. The response was the scientific community stepped forward with the Asilomar Conference back in the early 1970’s, and 

the best and the brightest lawyers, business people, scientists, and 

ethicists created a set of guidelines that were then used with NIH 

to create the framework by which recombinant DNA technology 

was able to not only start but flourish and has resulted in some 

incredible breakthroughs in the treatment of serious diseases. 

The CHAIRMAN. As I understand your testimony, you do not do 

embryonic stem cell research. 

Mr. DOERFLER. We do not. 

The CHAIRMAN. But you do adult stem cell research. But you are 

here testifying on behalf of stem cell research to be expanded in 

other areas. Is that because you recognize that adult stem cells 

may work for some diseases and embryonic may work for other 

kinds of diseases? 

Mr. DOERFLER. I am not sure we understand how broadly adult 

stem cells can be used, and one way of learning about that is being 

able to study embryonic stem cells, understanding how these cells 

differentiate into pancreatic cells or nerve cells, so we can directly 

take the learning from embryonic stem cells differentiation and 

apply them to cells like umbilical cord stem cells or bone marrowderived stem cells. It is an important area that we need to know. 

We just do not have the background yet to understand how cells 

differentiate and what we need to do to proliferate these cells, expand these cells without them differentiating, which is a huge 

problem in the stem cell area. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Kohl. 

Senator KOHL. No questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Doug. We appreciate your 

time and your contribution again. 

Our next witness is John Gearhart, Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University, Department of Medicine, Institute for Cell Engineering. 

Thank you for being here, sir.

40

STATEMENT OF JOHN D. GEARHART, PH.D., JOHNS HOPKINS 

UNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE, INSTITUTE FOR 

CELL ENGINEERING, BALTIMORE, MD 

Mr. GEARHART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the invitation. I 

think one of the advantages of testifying toward the end is that 

many of your points were already taken, but I think there is one 

area that I can be of service to the committee. My laboratory has 

been working on stem cells for the last 13 years. We were one of 

the two labs in the country to report the isolation of very unique 

stem cells from the earliest stages of human embryos. 

Since that time, in 1998, we have developed a very large research program at Johns Hopkins centered in the Institute for Cell 

Engineering, and I think what I would like to present to you is 

what is going on in an institute such as ours on a daily basis with 

respect to human embryonic stem cell research, adult stem cell research, and umbilical cord blood research. 

Our goal is not to promote one form of stem cell research over 

another. Our goal is to try to find cell-based therapies. We want 

to see what works, what does not work. 

One of the difficulties in any stem cell research program at this 

point in time—and we will talk specifically about embryonic stem 

cell research—is that we have now cells in a laboratory dish that 

are capable of forming any of the over 200 different cell types that 

are present in your body. We do not want 200 different cell types 

present in that dish. We want cardiomyocytes, the heart muscle; 

we want dopaminergic neurons, those cells that are needed for Parkinson’s disease; we want motor neurons. 

How do we get them? Now, here is this cell that has these capabilities. How do we direct it to form what we want and in the numbers we need to do any kind of graft for a therapy? 

So with these 200 different cell types, I think I have a graduate 

student working on each one, or a post-doc, and there are problems. We can to some degree generate all these different cell types, 

but it is a matter of efficiency. We rely upon basic science information that has been obtained over the years, principally through the 

NIH funding, on how in our bodies from the very earliest stages 

of embryogenesis a motor neuron becomes a motor neuron or a 

heart cell becomes a heart cell. 

We try to take that information and utilize it in a dish to say, 

well, we know at this point in time it is seeing this type of a 

growth factor or any number of combinations of things, and we try 

to recapitulate the steps to get us to the endpoint. In some of these 

cases, we have succeeded in generating various kinds of cells with 

high efficiency. In our lab, we have been interested in cardiac tissue, in motor neurons. We are also interested in dopaminergic neurons for Parkinson’s disease. We are also interested in blood cells. 

But let me tell you what takes place now. We are able, for example, to grow large numbers of human heart muscle cells. We can 

do this now through embryonic stem cell technology. We are now 

in the process of grafting these cells into various animal models, 

whether it is congestive heart failure, heart attack, to see if these 

cells will function following transplantation. The same is true of 

dopaminergic neurons for Parkinson’s disease or motor neurons, 

which you will about hear from Dr. Zhang. 

41

This now is a whole other level of issues that we must confront 

and solve, and that is, how do we introduce these cells? Do they 

stay where you put them? Do they form tumors? Do they maintain 

their function over periods of years, which is what really we are 

targeting in humans? Do we have animal models that will model 

human disease, and how effective are they? 

So we have our cells in rodents, we have our cells in fish, we 

have our cells in monkeys—all with the idea of how well will these 

cells function to cure or to ameliorate any of these disease processes. You say, well, this is great. It is great. This is a major step 

in the direction of moving toward human trials. But there is much 

work to do to get it to the human trials. 

Where have the limitations come from? Well, quite frankly, it is 

from Federal funding into this area. We are very limited in what 

we can do with Federal funding in our laboratories. Dr. Goldstein 

made an important point that I hope you did not miss. If we are 

using the approved lines for NIH funding in our laboratories, they 

must be handled in a very, very different way logistically than 

lines that we use from Harvard or from Singapore in that it must 

be clear that everything that touches those cells, including the 

technicians that are using it, has a straight line and only a straight 

line to the Federal funding source, that there is no crossover into 

other areas of where that Federal money is going. That logistically 

is a nightmare. Most of us have to build separate laboratories to 

make sure that those walls are there. This is a major, major limitation. 

The lines themselves that we use with the Federal sources, they 

certainly are proving to be valuable in many areas of research. I 

am not discounting that. But there are limitations. We find, for example, in some of these lines that we cannot isolate a specific cell 

type out of those existing lines, and we have to go to lines that 

were generated at Harvard or outside of this to find the cell type 

of interest that we are looking for. This is a major limitation. 

Again, this whole issue of how much flexibility an investigator 

has among laboratories in the same institution, some working on 

the human approved lines with NIH—sorry, not human approved, 

but the approved lines for Federal funding, and down the hall or 

next door to us we have a lab working on another type of cell line. 

There is just a logistical nightmare with this as it now exists. 

Still, I would commend you and commend the Members of the 

House for trying to expand the current policy. I think the generation of new lines is extremely important for our work. We will, I 

think, be more assured that these lines will have utility, that they 

will be safe, and provide us a broader base as far as the genetics 

are concerned within those cells. 

So, again, I thank you for trying to expand that. I wish I could 

nudge you to even expand it in other directions, if we could, and 

perhaps we could talk about that at another time. But at this point 

in time, it is essential that this bill be passed, and it is essential, 

I think, as far as national policy is concerned, that we have a better policy covering more aspects of the work. 

I will stop there. I would love to get into our issues with our investigators in other countries and how we are dealing with that 

42

competitively, et cetera. But I again thank you for your support on 

behalf of S. 471. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gearhart follows:]


23759.010
43


23759.011
44


23759.012
45


23759.013
46


23759.014
47

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Gearhart, I came from a luncheon of my Republican colleagues where there was—and in the interest of confidentiality, I am not going to mention anybody’s names, but there 

were a lot of pro-life Senators in that room with different opinions 

on this issue. One of my colleagues, who will remain anonymous, 

made the point that there is a new type of embryonic stem cell research that does not destroy the embryo. I do not know what the 

name of it is or I would tell you that, but you probably know what 

I am talking about because it has been in the newspaper. The point 

he was making is that this argument will be moot in the very near 

future if that type of research is the one that goes forward. 

Can you speak to that? 

Mr. GEARHART. Oh, I would love to. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is that person wrong on that? 

Mr. GEARHART. Well, look, one of the most disheartening aspects 

of being in these stem cell battles—I have been there for 7 or 8 

years—is the distortion of facts around any aspect of either other 

avenues that can work, the claims around the adult stem cells, for 

example, of doing everything that an embryonic stem cell can do. 

This is just very disheartening, and I would like to quote one of 

your former great Senators from the standpoint that, he was fond 

of saying you are welcome to your own opinion but not your own 

facts. This is the case: 

We saw recently published in the Washington Post an article by 

Rick Weiss in which he summarized several new alternatives to the 

use of embryos or the destruction of embryos in embryonic stem 

cell research. None of this is published. Some of it is in the very 

earliest stages of research. If you read this carefully—and I would 

tell you I have read some of the manuscripts that have come out 

of this. I probably should not say that. This is not—the frequency 

of success in this is extremely low. There are many holes in the experimental designs and the outcomes of what people have even presented at meetings up to this point. 

If we were to wait around for this to work, I mean, to say, yes, 

I would love just to take a single cell, one cell off an embryo and 

say that we can generate an embryonic stem cell line out of that, 

leaving the remainder of the embryo to be used for reproductive 

purposes, the frequency and success of this is so low you would 

have to sample from hundreds of embryos. No one is going to permit this in any kind of a protocol before an IRB, internal review 

board. It is not going to be that way. 

So I would just say to you I hope it would work. 

The CHAIRMAN. But it is not the silver bullet that it was presented as being? 

Mr. GEARHART. It is not the silver bullet, and if we were to wait 

around any longer before we really established robust ES work in 

this country, we are really going to be behind. 

The CHAIRMAN. That was my supposition to what was being said 

and argued very strenuously, but there was, you will be pleased to 

know, lots of Senators arguing in a different direction, in the direction you are advocating. 

You are from one of the great medical schools in our Nation, and 

I don’t know that Maryland has passed any bond initiative like 

48

California’s. What does the range of the CA-initiative mean to 

Johns Hopkins? 

Mr. GEARHART. Well, we came, interestingly, within one vote of 

a filibuster in the Senate of Maryland of perhaps passing legislation. It was not a bond issue. It was $23 million for embryonic stem 

cell research. 

I think you could argue the point in two ways. I wish that States 

did not have to get into this. I mean, money is scarce. States can 

do many things with it. But because of the national political scene, 

we have to get in it. I think we have to get in it not only to support 

our researchers, but I think where those States are going to be successful is they are going to serve as catalysts for bringing in biotechnology that is going to be there for decades. 

This is what is happening in California. People are looking there. 

I mean biotech companies. The other thing which I am personally 

upset about is that they are coming to members in our research 

group and saying, How about a job in an environment with money? 

You do not have to worry about these things. For particularly 

young investigators, this is a major draw. I think we are going to 

see this not only in California, I believe New York is going to be 

in play, New Jersey is in play, other States are going to be in play. 

I think we are going to get partitioning out of not just stem cell 

research but, as I say, there is going to be a movement to where 

there is a progressive outlook on biomedical research, and it would 

be characterized by those States. So it does have an impact, I 

think, both in getting our work done and having the personnel that 

we would like. 

One other point. For us to get this technology to the clinic, it is 

not just going to reside in the academic setting. We are going to 

have to be partnering with biotech companies, pharmaceutical companies, because it is going to be expensive to get it into the clinic. 

To go through trials and things like this, we are going to need the 

partnerships with biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, and if they 

are going to other places where this is more appropriate, we are 

not going to have it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Frankly, the money and where people live that 

are doing the research is a very, very secondary consideration, but 

I think you have just told me that Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Oregon 

Health Sciences University, you know, they are going to be out of 

the business in a sense. They are certainly going to be in the back 

benches of this effort if the Federal Government does not participate financially and by creating ethical boundaries. 

Mr. GEARHART. One of the arguments that is made is why isn’t 

it just handled by the private side. I do not see where all the 

money would come from. I mean, we are now—yes, we are the recipients, as other institutions are, of millions of dollars for some of 

this research. But this cannot go on forever. Clearly, I think at the 

state-of-the-art of the work, at the very early stages, we need the 

Federal support which historically has come. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Kohl. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Your comments, your questions, and your responses have been 

quite informative and have really added to the depth of the dialog, 

and we appreciate very much your being here. 

49

Mr. GEARHART. Thank you, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Doctor. We appreciate 

very much your presence. 

I think it would be appropriate for me to allow your Senator to 

introduce you. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our next witness, Dr. 

Su-Chun Zhang, is a researcher at the University of WisconsinMadison at the renowned Waisman Center. He is known worldwide 

in the science community for recent scientific breakthroughs that 

successfully coaxed stem cells into becoming human motor neurons, 

the nerves responsible for movement throughout the entire body. 

Dr. Zhang’s research illustrates the enormous potential of embryonic stem cell research in treating and curing diseases affecting the 

lives of Americans suffering from Parkinson’s, ALS, and other disorders. So we welcome you here, and we are looking forward to 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF SU-CHUN ZHANG, M.D., PH.D., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF ANATOMY AND NEUROLOGY, STEM CELL RESEARCH PROGRAM, WAISMAN MENTAL RETARDATION CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON, MADISON, WI 

Dr. ZHANG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify 

before you about the recent progress in the area of human embryonic stem cells. Since I am the last one, most of the points have 

been made. But I just would like to tell you how I got into embryonic stem cell research, how we feel about the current state of embryonic stem cell research in this country. 

I used to work on brain stem cells, one kind of the so-called adult 

stem cells. The hope was to use these brain stem cells to produce 

specialized brain cells to repair neurological disorders. But it 

turned out that even though these brain stem cells can produce 

nerve cells, they actually have very limited capacity to produce 

very specialized nerve cells like dopamine neurons, motor neurons, 

or oligodendrocytes that are lost in multiple sclerosis patients and 

other patients. 

That was one of the major reasons why I contacted Dr. Thomson, 

Jamie Thomson, who was the first person, along with Dr. Gearhart, 

to establish the first human embryonic stem cell lines in the world. 

We started, but because of the sensitivity of embryonic stem cell 

research, actually I waited for a year and a half in order to set up 

a separate small and very rudimentary laboratory outside of the institute in order to conduct this kind of research. 

Like many laboratories in this country, my own laboratory was 

not able to use these cells until 2002, after the President’s decision 

on the Federal funding on human ES cells. But if you look back 

just the past three years, the progress that has been made in the 

area of embryonic stem cell research is quite enormous. 

It has already been shown that many cell types can be produced 

from human embryonic stem cells, including heart muscle cells, 

brain cells, or blood cells. In particular, at least in the literature, 

peer-reviewed literature, it has been shown that the dopamine neurons can be very efficiently produced from these embryonic stem 

cells, including from my own lab, and motor neurons which control 

our movement can also be produced from these cells. There is a reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:09 Dec 01, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\23759.TXT SAGING1 PsN: JOYCE
50

cent report showing that another type of cells which are making 

myelin sheath, and are lost in multiple sclerosis patients, can also 

be produced very efficiently. 

So by just looking at this very short period of time in terms of 

the progress made in this area, it is quite unprecedented in the history of science, and it speaks itself of the great potential of embryonic stem cells. 

Furthermore, actually recently it already began to show that 

these cells may work in repairing some of the damages in animal 

studies. I think what has been shown lately in animal studies, if 

you transplant some of these embryonic stem cell-derived nerve 

cells, they can help animals that have motor neuron disease or Parkinson’s disease or even spinal cord injury. Of course, a lot more 

work needs to be done in order for this technology to be actually 

used in patients. 

Now, if you look back at the past two or three years or beyond, 

there are also problems. The problem is that we have only a limited number of stem cell lines to work, and plus these cell lines 

were originally derived from growing on animal cells. Now more 

and more investigators want to use these cell lines. So the number 

of lines are simply not sufficient for the community to work, at 

least using Federal dollars. 

Further, if you want to use some special stem cell lines, for example, some cell lines that have genetic defects which will allow us 

to understand what is going wrong and how to correct them, these 

are still not allowed to be used using Federal dollars. For example, 

my institute works on mental retardation and genetic disorders, 

and we are very keen to use these cell lines. But if I take these 

cell lines and I already have Federal money, it just is so difficult 

to separate these Federal dollars away from the private funding. So 

the reality is the current situation, current rule that you can work 

on these stem cell line using Federal dollars, actually not only 

slows down the research using stem cells, but also interferes, actually affects the effective use of private funding. If I am going to use 

private funds to work on the cell lines currently not in the (NIH) 

registry, I have to again go back to what I did several years ago 

to set up a separate lab outside of the area I am working on. So 

these problems really hamper the area of research. 

That is why we really want to urge the Senators to consider 

changing the current rule. I think you already mentioned that you 

will. 

Finally, before I came here, some of my graduate students 

grabbed me: ‘‘You have to deliver another point.’’ That is, we Americans actually led the world by first establishing this human embryonic stem cell work, including the pioneers, Dr. Thomson and 

Dr. Gearhart here. Yet we should not be left out. I told them yesterday, I said the Senators are much smarter than us. They want 

Americans to lead the way, and will not let us down in leading the 

world in this area of promising research, which could potentially be 

saving life and improving health for all Americans. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Zhang follows:]

51


23759.015
52


23759.016
53


23759.017
54

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Zhang, to that point, are there other nations 

that are ahead of us now in this area? 

Dr. ZHANG. In some areas, for example, the cloning of humanspecific cell lines, because these techniques have been already 

there, here in Wisconsin or in Johns Hopkins. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are referring to the therapeutic cloning. 

Dr. ZHANG. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. But how about in the embryonic stem cell? 

Dr. ZHANG. Well, sir, as I mentioned, currently we only have limited numbers of cell lines available. 

The CHAIRMAN. Can you name a country that is proceeding on 

embryonic stem cell research? Is Great Britain? 

Dr. ZHANG. Great Britain, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Australia, also including China, Israel, many, many other countries. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Gearhart, do you have a sense of where they 

are relative to where we are? 

Mr. GEARHART. Yes there are certain ways in science that you 

measure where progress is being made. One of the best measures, 

Senator, is looking at where publications are coming from, just the 

number of publications and the quality, you could argue, also, of 

that. Initially, as was pointed out, this work started in the U.S., 

and we saw U.S. investigators publishing most of the papers. The 

last few years we have seen a tremendous upswing in papers coming from these other countries, just in sheer volume and in quality. 

Good work is being done by these investigators. So that is one 

measure that we take as to, you know, where this work is being 

done. 

The second is looking at the investment, either through the government or through the private side, and we are seeing hundreds 

of millions of dollars dumped directly into embryonic stem cell research. This does not deal with the cloning issues at all in whether 

it is Singapore, whether it is China, Israel. We can go down the 

list, and this is another measures of just looking at where the investment is. 

We also now look at where the investigators are going to do this 

work. Now, before California was in play, you know, students, postdocs, were leaving the country. Now they may go to California, 

which would be the same difference, perhaps. But the issue is it 

is in play now. But I am telling you that when our students were 

finishing and looking for jobs, looking for what we call post-doctoral 

fellowships, they are looking at other countries. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Zhang, you mentioned that the President’s 

decision to allow embryonic stem cell research to proceed on these 

78 approved lines has developed some real progress on the issue. 

Dr. ZHANG. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. But as I have read, the way in which they were 

allowed to be generated through mouse cells ultimately makes it 

impossible for them to take this page and just xerox it, you know, 

ad infinitum, and that they are just played out. 

Dr. ZHANG. Yes, it will make it very difficult for you to translate 

what progress you made using the current lines to application to 

the clinical side. 

The CHAIRMAN. So we are really at a dead end at this point in 

making progress. 

55

Dr. ZHANG. Exactly. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do all of you agree with that in terms of the 

lines that are available, they are played out at this point, in terms 

whether we can do more? 

Dr. ZHANG. We can still use the existing lines to do basic research, but in order for the translation from basic to clinical side, 

we need cleaner lines that are derived using different technology. 

The reality is this technology is being developed. As mentioned earlier, Dr. Thomson’s lab in Madison already established a method 

that you can grow these human embryonic stem cells without the 

animal cells as supporting feeder cells. In other words, you can potentially generate new stem cell lines that will be free of animal 

contaminants. 

The CHAIRMAN. So what we have done to date has been of value, 

but the potential of these lines has been maximized. Is that what 

you would say, Dr. Gearhart? 

Mr. GEARHART. I agree with that. From a pure utility standpoint 

in the laboratory, to work on lines that have to be grown on other 

types of cells makes it just very difficult to identify specific components that are critical for differentiating these into some specific 

types. So we would rather work on lines that had no feeder layers—these are now available—or have never seen an animal product. When you say animal product, you are generally talking about 

a mixture of stuff, we do not know what is in it, but they sure grow 

well. We would like to define what is in it, and that is now what 

is being done with some of these other lines that are available in 

what Jamie has recently done. This is an extremely valuable reagent that should be eligible for Federal funding if we want to 

progress. 

The CHAIRMAN. Just for my own research, I understand that 

adult stem cells may actually really work well for some sorts of afflictions, but that it is more difficult to coax adult stem cells into 

specific cells. Is that accurate? 

Dr. ZHANG. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Can you access specialized cells for advanced diagnosis and treatment of various diseases? Can you tell me what 

are adult stem cells most promising to help, and what are embryonic stem cells most likely to cure? 

Dr. ZHANG. For some adult stem cells, like blood stem cells, they 

have been used in the clinic for years to treat anemia and leukemia 

and other disorders. But in terms of the nervous system, some 

adult stem cells can be used as vehicles to deliver some therapeutic 

agents into the brain because they can still generate nerve cells or 

some glial cells, the supporting cells of the brain. Therefore, I think 

they can still be used. 

Also, maybe some time in the future when we figure out how to 

get embryonic stem cells to specialized nerve cells, we may actually 

learn these tricks and apply these tricks to adult stem cells and 

then teach these adult stem cells to become specialized. They may 

still have the potential. That is why in the scientific community we 

support both types of stem cells instead of just one or the other. 

The CHAIRMAN. Cord blood as well. 

Dr. ZHANG. Sure. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Kohl. 

56

Senator KOHL. Thank you. To put that in another way and elicit 

an opinion from you, you are saying, as I understand it, that embryonic stem cell research is essential, that adult stem cell research all by itself is really not a viable option. 

Dr. ZHANG. I didn’t say that. [Laughter.] 

If I was understood in this way, then—no, I am saying that different types of stem cells have different kinds of uses. 

Senator KOHL. Right. 

Dr. ZHANG. I think Senator Smith already asked this question. 

I think the answer would be the same. Adult stem cells have their 

use in specific areas, and embryonic stem cells also potentially 

have their usage, although we are just beginning to understand 

how they might work. They actually will fuse to each other and to 

promote the understanding how stem cells, whether they are in 

embryo or in adult, work. 

Senator KOHL. Yes. Is it fair to say it in another way that to 

maximize what you are doing, you need to have opportunity to do 

both? 

Dr. ZHANG. Sure. 

Mr. GEARHART. Correct. 

Senator KOHL. That is categorical in your opinion. 

Dr. ZHANG. Absolutely. 

Senator KOHL. It is not subject to opinion anymore. 

Mr. GEARHART. No. 

Dr. ZHANG. No. 

Senator KOHL. I thank you. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any closing comments? 

Senator KOHL. I am done. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Gentlemen, this has been very, very helpful, 

and your contribution will be reflected ultimately when this debate 

goes to the Senate floor. So we thank you very much for your time. 

We respect your work, and we hope to help you advance it. 

Chris Dudley, again, our many thanks for coming this long way. 

With that, the committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:13 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(57)

A P P E N D I X 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY

One of the greatest discoveries in Medicine is the potential to use a single undifferentiated cell to help address the severe pain and suffering that numerous diseases, such as heart disease, diabetes, and cancer inflict every day. However, The 

Johns Hopkins University recognizes that stem cell research raises significant ethical concerns and that public policy on stem cell research must carefully balance the 

ethical and medical considerations, yet enable researchers to fulfill the promise of 

stem cell research for providing medical therapies. 

Johns Hopkins strongly supports the use of stem cells for legitimate research and 

therapeutic purposes. Stem cell research promises to have an enormous impact on 

human health and quality of life, and also on fundamental biomedical understanding. Stem cells can be obtained from embryonic, fetal, and adult tissues. It is 

essential that all these sources be investigated to determine which is most likely 

to fulfill the goals of basic research and lead to the development of new medical 

therapies. 

John Hopkins supports the use of the somatic cell nuclear transfer technique (popularly known as ‘‘therapeutic cloning’’ or ‘‘research cloning’’) for the purpose of producing stem cell lines that are geneticaly idjentical to the person from whom the 

nucleus was obtained. These stem cell lines are critical to help researchers better 

understand the pathogenesis of disease and provide information useful in developing 

therapies for people with a wide variety of diseases and injuries. In addition, stem 

cell lines produced using somatic cell nuclear transfer could overcome the rejection 

of tissues following transplantation. 

However, Johns Hopkins strongly opposes the use of stem cell technology and somatic cell nuclear transfer for the purposes of creating a cloned human being (popularly known as ‘‘reproductive cloning’’). 

Stem cell research at John Hopkins is conducted under strict scientific and ethical 

guidelines that meet all federally mandated requirements. Johns Hopkins has long 

been a leader in the development of new therapies for patients, and stem cells represents a unique and promising approach in the development of new, critically needed treatments. Research at Johns Hopkins on stem cells is supported by the National Institutes of Health, patient-based organizations, partnerships with corporations, and private philanthropy.

Æ