WILLIAM SCHULZ

A report on stem cell research from the National Academies released last week is not a critique or a response of any kind to the Bush Administration's recent policy statement on embryonic stem cell research, says the academies' study chair, Bert Vogelstein, a professor of oncology and pathology at Johns Hopkins University. Several early reports about the study have characterized it as a critical response to the President's decision.

"We are not trying to set policy," Vogelstein asserts. "Now that the report is published, we hope it will be part of the useful information available to Congress and the executive branch." He insists that panel members had but one goal: to establish the facts about stem cell research for policymakers.

IRREPLACEABLE Adult stem cells are no substitute for embryonic stem cells when it comes to research.

Indeed, Vogelstein continues, the value of the report is that it is an "authoritative, highly reviewed statement" based on documented evidence about stem cell research efforts to date and the potential obstacles to future U.S. research efforts.

"We wanted to determine what's real and what's not" regarding stem cell research, Vogelstein says. As an example, he points to portions of the report that deal with the debate over the value of adult stem cells versus embryonic stem cells.

"Adult stem cells cannot substitute for embryonic stem cells," Vogelstein says. "There are distinct advantages to embryonic stem cells. That's very important for policymakers to understand."

Vogelstein says the report attempts to answer four questions about stem cell research: What is the status of the research? What is the promise? What are the obstacles? What are the societal implications?

"We hope the report will be a meaningful part of the debate," Vogelstein says. The report, "Stem Cells and the Future of Regenerative Medicine," is available online at http://national-academies.org.

Chemical & Engineering News
Copyright © 2001 American Chemical Society