BIOSCIENCE Langevin details changing view of stem cells BY STEVEN STYCOS

Is US Representative James Langevin of Rhode Island a courageous advocate for stem cell research or a wavering politician?

At last summer’s Democratic National Convention, Langevin became a national spokesman for stem cell research when he introduced a prime time speech on the issue by the son of former president Ronald Reagan. Using the unusual combination of a partially paralyzed congressman with anti-abortion views and the son of a Republican icon, Democrats hoped to win over some moderate Republican and independent voters.

But former state Representative Rodney Driver, who has unsuccessfully run for Langevin’s seat, says the three-term congressman is no friend of stem cell research. Citing Langevin’s voting record on the issue, Driver says, "What really irks me is how he has been able to take credit on both sides of the issue." Langevin’s positions on the complex issue have changed since he was elected to Congress. During his first term in 2001, he voted with conservative Republicans. In 2003, however, he sided with liberal Democrats on two floor votes, before voting again to severely restrict cloning.

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops and President George W. Bush support the use of adult stem cells, like bone marrow transplants, to cure diseases. Using stem cells from human embryos, however, is extremely controversial.

The Catholic Church and other critics strongly oppose experimenting with fertilized embryos because they can develop into humans. "It’s really unnecessary to go down that road to create human life just for scientific research," says Rita Parquette, executive director of the Rhode Island State Right to Life Committee. "It’s really crossing a line that’s never been crossed before." Parquette praises Langevin for his opposition to abortion, but she disagrees with his support for experimenting with embryos from in vitro fertilization efforts that would otherwise be discarded. "He doesn’t call this human life," she says, summarizing their differences, "and we do."

Scientists manipulate embryonic stem cells, or cells that develop into critical human body parts, in two major ways. The first is by removing stem cells from a newly fertilized egg. The second, commonly called therapeutic cloning, is to insert a cell nucleus from an adult into an unfertilized embryo. When stem cells are subsequently removed under this method, they have identical DNA to the donor and therefore may be less likely to be rejected. Cloned embryos, at least theoretically, could also grow into an exact human copy of the donor.

In 2001, Langevin sided with House Republicans, to pass legislation criminalizing all human cloning. Driver, Langevin, Parquette and almost everyone else opposes the use of cloning to create human beings. But the 2001 legislation also established penalties of up to 10 years in jail and $1 million in fines for cloning to grow human tissue, like a kidney or spinal cord, to cure serious illness. Supporters of therapeutic cloning tried twice to separate the two issues. First, they sought to restrict the cloning ban, making it apply only to reproduction. When that failed, 178-249, they tried to recommit the bill to committee with instructions that a revised bill should permit cloning for treatment of diseases including Parkinson’s and cancer. That idea also failed, 175-251.

Langevin was one of about 50 Democrats who opposed both moves, and he then voted for a bill that included what Driver calls "draconian" penalties.

In 2003, the House voted on the same three issues. This time, Langevin supported the two efforts to exempt therapeutic cloning from the ban. These efforts failed again, due to the opposition of all but 23 Republicans. Langevin then joined an overwhelming majority of Republicans and 41 Democrats to pass the criminalization of therapeutic and reproductive cloning.

This voting record leads Driver to accuse Langevin of playing both sides of the issue, but Langevin says simply, "Once I came to a better understanding of it [therapeutic cloning], I supported it." Between the 2001 and 2003 votes, he says, he met with scientists and other lawmakers, concluding "that therapeutic cloning and stem sell research hold the potential to extend and improve the quality of lives for millions of people." But, he adds, he strongly opposes reproductive cloning.

The issue will remain prominent, and Langevin promises to try to separate the issues of reproductive and therapeutic cloning. Meanwhile, Bush has banned federal funds for embryonic stem cell research, but privately funded research continues in the US and overseas. In recent months, according to the Boston Globe, researchers have announced new approaches to avoid controversy. In November, Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Massachusetts, said it induced a human egg to grow without fertilization. And earlier this month, two Columbia University researchers said they can remove stem cells from embryos that have stopped growing, making the technique more like an organ transfer than the ending of a life.

Meanwhile, millions hope for cures to incurable diseases and disabilities. One of them is Langevin, a pro-life Rhode Island congressmen confined to a wheelchair since he was accidentally shot as a teenager.