Monday, July 17, 2006

U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Floor Statement on Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Remarks as Delivered on the Senate Floor

I rise to take advantage of the time assigned or allotted for all of us to discuss what is obviously a passionate, controversial, and important issue. But I rise to talk about it from probably a different perspective than some of the other speeches, at least that I have heard. I want to talk prospectively about what happens after this debate is over. If all the predictions come true, at the end of the day, we won't debate stem cells for the rest of this year because the agreement to bring it to the floor was that we come to the floor, we debate these three bills, and the debate would be over for the year. Well, the debate won't be over. In fact, if anything, this is probably the beginning of a long debate as we deal with the ethics and the morality and the hope and the promise of science as it relates to stem cells. In particular, embryonic stem cells.

When the president issued his order in August 2001, I suported it because it invested in embryonic stem cell research and it clearly drew the line in terms of how far we would go. And I have been supportive of the president's policies on embryonic stem cell research since.

When H.R. 810 passed, I began to do what I think all of us should do. I began to get educated as best I could on this controversial and important issue. Dr. Michael Johns at Emory University helped me. Dr. Steven Stice at the University of Georgia helped me. I sat through more than a few demonstrations -- not sales presentations but demonstrations of programs and efforts in embryonic stem cell research that are underway, that are under N.I.H. guidelines and we're moving forward. And I learned a lot of things.

I learned this : Embryonic stem cells were uncovered or identified in 1998. Research has been done for eight years. They hold great promise. Adult stem cells have been around longer and have demonstrated promise beyond what embryonic has to date, but because of the time and the amount that's been invested.

But I learned one thing. I'm not smart enough to know what the end result of all this research will be, but I’m smart enough to know that we must continue to be a player, our country, in the research.

Everywhere N.I.H. is involved, you have standards, you have ethics, you have procedures, and you have protocol. And it is very important that all those exist in such a delicate and important type of research. We must be respectful of human life and the proposal in 810 that is of concern is that it involves the destruction of an embryo that if implanted could become a human being. That is a legitimate concern for us as a country to have.

When Senator Frist began fielding inquiries with regard to this issue months ago, after 810 passed the house, I engaged myself, as I was in this learning process, in hopes of finding a prospect where we could match the standards of ethics we all want and also invest in the hope for the future. I believed that there was a way -- in fact there is a way -- that we can invest in embryonic stem cell research without involving the destruction of an embryo that could be transferable to the womb and become a fetus.

And for a second I want to discuss that on the floor simply, if nothing else, to point out that there are many opportunities of hope out there that meet both the ethical and the moral as well as the scientific desire that I think a consensus of this body has.

Dr. Steven Stice is a noted researcher at the University of Georgia. I had the privilege of meeting him last year, have three times been to his clinic at the university. Dr. Steven Stice is a man who understands the concern over the ethics of the destruction of a viable embryo.

So in the development of embryonic lines, bg01, 2, and 3, which were developed prior to August 2001 and are in operation at the University of Georgia today, those stem cell lines were derived from the byproducts of in-vitro fertilization that could not be implanted and could not be frozen.

My point to you, the presiding officer and the ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, is this: There are three lines that exist today that were derived from the byproducts of in-vitro fertilization that could not be implanted in the womb and become a fetus or be frozen for subsequent implementation. Under the Gardner, et al, principles and the grading of the material in in-vitro fertilization, there is a clear line of that which is viable, that which can be frozen and that which cannot. It doesn't involve the discarding of anything that could be viable, but it does lend hope that from sources other than the viable embryo, stem cells can be derived.

I respect human life, and I want us as a nation to always be respectful and never disrespectful of it and its potential. I also respect the wonder of science and innovation and the great discoveries that it has brought. I stand here today believing that you can do both and that as we move forward beyond this debate, beyond a veto, if it takes place, whatever the fire and substance are, we should start tomorrow looking at these other alternatives.

Just in the 18 months since this issue began to bubble up in the Senate, there have been breakthroughs -- single-cell extraction from embryos without the destruction of the embryo, something that holds great promise for those cells to actually replicate themselves into stem cells. We can do it. It is important that we stay on course do it. But it's important that we do not break the ethical principles to which we are committed and always be respectful of life.

In the course of the negotiations with the leader -- and I want to inject something here with Majority Leader Frist. I don't know anybody who's ever been dealt a tougher hand in terms of coming to a resolution to bring these issues to the floor. I want to thank him for the amount of input he let me have. Unfortunately, I was unsuccessful in being a part of the final debate in terms of what I just described, in terms of the stem cell lines that are operational at the University of Georgia. But I think under the circumstances he did the best that he could.

I stand here as a member of this Senate with four years remaining in my term knowing we will revisit this issue time and again. As science changes and moves forward, there will be ways we can embrace, ethically and rightfully, research that holds hope and promise for those who suffer and those who are afflicted.

My last comment is this. I was a real estate broker in my private life before I came to Congress. I'm not a doctor, and I’m not a scientist. I've heard some declaratory statements on the floor about what research will and will not prove in the future. I didn't just fall off a turnip truck. You do research to determine what you're going to find out, not just to predict what it will or will not do. So as we go through this difficult, tenuous debate over a subject of immense importance to the American people, let's look for ways that we can be respectful of human life and open the doors for the furtherance of the development in science in embryonic stem cells. I would submit, there are ways to do both, and I will be here to work with the leader, with my colleagues, with our president to unlock those keys so that that promise and hope exists and we never breach the ethical divide that causes the debate today.