Research Charities Weigh Benefits, Risks of Embryonic Stem-Cell Grants

By Brennen Jensen

One of the thorniest decisions charities like the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research

have had to make over the past few years is whether to support human embryonic stem-cell research.

The New York charity has spent $8-million on the controversial research so far, a small but significant part of the $50-million it has spent on research during the past five years. And Mr. Fox became a visible advocate for increasing federal and state money for embryonic stem-cell research when he campaigned last fall for John Kerry, the Democratic contender for president.

In addition to the Fox Foundation money, several other medical-research charities — including the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation — have spent millions of dollars on the research, which involves extracting cells from a four- or five-day-old embryo that have the ability to develop into any kind of cell or tissue type in the human body. Many medical researchers believe that the regenerative powers of stem cells offer the potential to heal debilitating conditions, such as spinal-cord injuries and damaged hearts, as well as treat a host of ailments, including diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s disease.

Several universities and medical centers have started new programs that are seeking to tap into growing interest by donors in such research. Harvard University, for instance, has raised $26-million toward the creation of its stem-cell institute.

Yet other research charities — including the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, in New York, and the Alzheimer’s Association, in Chicago — have not spent any money for embryonic stem-cell research, either because they do not believe it is a high priority, or because of the ethical controversy surrounding it.

Opponents of the research say the potential benefits have been oversold and that the procedure, which involves extracting the cells from embryos that are destroyed in the process, equates to the killing of a human life.

The division over the merits of stem cells was so deep that the American Heart Association decided to steer clear by not making any grants itself to finance such research. The group is urging the federal government to support the work.

“There are such strongly held views on both sides of the issue, we couldn’t reach a decision to fund this area of research,” says David Livingston, a lawyer for the association and chair of the charity’s committee that examined the issue.

The National Multiple Sclerosis Society and the Alzheimer’s Association say their policies do not prohibit funds from being used for such research — they simply have not found any projects they want to support. And both oppose restrictions on using government funds for such work, providing the research is performed legally and with ethical oversight.

Deep Divisions

While invisible to the naked eye, embryonic stem cells loom large in the realm of ethical and political debate. Stem cells derived from adult tissue and umbilical-cord blood also show medical promise and are not controversial, but many scientists say those cells are more limited in how they regenerate.

Researchers involved in embryonic stem-cell research say private donations have been critical to their work, particularly because President Bush imposed restrictions in 2001 on the kinds of stem-cell research that can be done with federal money. Only embryonic stem-cell lines that existed when the law was signed can be used. Many scientists say those lines are insufficient and have impurities that limit their use.

States are now starting to pour money into stem-cell research, and are doing so without the strings attached by the federal government. Californians last year passed a ballot measure that earmarked $3-billion over 10 years to create and support the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, and several other states are considering similar moves.

‘Minority’ View?

Mr. Fox, who was diagnosed with Parkinson’s in 1991, says he is mindful of the controversy that surrounds the stem-cell debate. “I have huge respect for people who are consistent and sincere in their opposition to embryonic stem-cell research,” he says. “I wouldn’t try and do anything to change their mind. However, I think they represent a minority of people in the country.”

In addition to the Fox Foundation, nonprofit organizations that have helped pay for embryonic stem-cell research include:

• The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, in New York, has spent $9-million on such research and plans to spend around $5-million this year. In 2002, Mary Tyler Moore — the actress who is the foundation’s international chairman and herself a diabetic — helped start the charity’s stem-cell development fund, which has raised nearly $20-million.
• The American Diabetes Association, in Alexandria, Va., plans to spend $4-million on all types of stem-cell research, including embryonic, through 2007.
• The Howard Hughes Medical Center, in Chevy Chase, Md., is paying the salaries and expenses of six researchers engaged in embryonic stem-cell research at laboratories around the country. The organization said it could not place a price tag on its contribution. “We don’t have budget categories for any specific diseases or particular types of research,” says Jim Keeley, a spokesman for the Howard Hughes center. “We support people, not projects.” One of the researchers, Doug Melton, who is working in conjunction with Harvard University and a Boston fertility clinic, has created 17 new embryonic stem-cell lines.

Most of these organizations offer donors the option of earmarking their money if they feel strongly that they do or do not wish to have their contributions go to support stem-cell research.

For donors who want to support embryonic stem-cell research, the opportunities for spending have expanded greatly in the past several years.

Among the universities and medical centers in the process of creating stem-cell research institutes:

• Harvard University received $5-million last year from Howard Heffron, a Harvard Law School alumnus, to help build its stem-cell institute, which will perform research with all types of stem cells.
• The Johns Hopkins University, in Baltimore, is creating the Institute for Cell Engineering. It received $58-million in 2001 from an anonymous donor for the project.
• Rockefeller University, in New York, received $5-million last year from Harriet Heilbrunn, a New York philanthropist, to start the Robert and Harriet Heilbrunn Center for Stem Cell Research. The center has raised $8-million to support stem-cell research of all kinds, including human embryonic.
• Stanford University School of Medicine, in California, is establishing the Stanford Institute for Cancer/Stem Cell Biology and Medicine. In 2002 it received $12-million from an anonymous donor, and has since raised an additional $14-million for the institute.
• The University of Wisconsin helped start WiCell, a nonprofit research institute that created some of the first human embryonic stem-cell lines in 1998. WiCell has received some $20-million in private donations and funds from the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, which holds patents on a number of technologies developed at the University of Wisconsin.

While private donations have started to grow for embryonic stem-cell research, they still represent only a trickle compared with what researchers say will be needed. That’s why donors like Mr. Fox have divided their support between paying for research and advocating for changes in the law that would increase government support.

Federal funds for such research, says Mr. Fox, is absolutely essential: “The government can throw more money at something by accident than the private sector can on purpose.”