Frist's Stem Cell Stance 'A Betrayal' of Bush Administration; 'Encouraging Sign' for Future of Stem Cell Therapy, Duke Experts Say

Republican leader Bill Frist's decision to support a bill to expand federal financing for embryonic stem cell research will weaken his position as Senate majority leader, says the chairman of Duke University's political science department.

"There are a lot of people in the Senate who really care about reducing or maybe even outlawing stem cell research," said Michael Munger, an expert in congressional-presidential relations. "On other issues, Frist can't say now that he speaks for the president. This is terribly embarrassing to the Bush administration, particularly because they value loyalty more than most. The Bush administration will consider this a betrayal."

Dr. Geoffrey S. Ginsburg, director of the Duke Institute for Genome Science & Policy's Center for Genomic Medicine, said Frist's decision is encouraging news for those who see therapeutic potential for embryonic stem cells.

"As a physician-scientist, Sen. Frist's decision strikes me as very good news," Ginsburg said. "It remains to be seen whether this will translate into a full-fledged policy shift in this country, but it's certainly an encouraging sign."

Munger predicted that Frist's statements on the floor of the Senate Friday morning could empower "wavering senators" to express their views in favor of stem cell research.

"Bill Frist has stood up on the top of the mountain and taken all the lightning," Munger said. "He's a pro-life guy. It'll give wavering senators some cover. What it does is damage his position to negotiate on other issues, but I don't think he'll lose his next election in Tennessee."

Ginsburg said embryonic stem cell (ESC) lines offer great potential for treating and possibly curing major diseases such as diabetes and Alzheimer's.

"Currently, there are two major problems," Ginsburg said. "It turns out that there are only 22 ESC lines eligible for federal funding under the current legislation.

"The other is quality. These cells have been maintained for years using these cell reagents derived from animals. The presence of these nonhuman elements raises the risk of contamination by animal pathogens. In other words, I would not want to use those cell lines or their derivatives in the clinic."

Ginsburg said that, over time, ESC lines can acquire major genetic abnormalities.

"This has already been seen in some of the ESC lines maintained by the National Institutes of Health. Just as we wouldn't want to treat a patient with a defective gene in a gene therapy trial, neither do we want to treat patients with cells harboring damaged chromosomes.

"New ESC lines would mean that we can start fresh with cells we know will be free of animal contaminants and genomic alterations. They will also provide an opportunity to bring the last four years' worth of scientific knowledge to bear on how these cells grow and differentiate and how we might best deploy them to treat human disease."