In nearly identical* op-eds published in the July 18 edition of The Pueblo Chieftain and the July 22 edition of the Rocky Mountain News, Colorado Right to Life president Diane Hochevar made several misleading statements in opposition to legislation co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) and passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, which would have expanded eligibility for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Advocating that federal research funding be limited to adult stem cells, Hochevar repeated a misleading claim that adult stem cells “have been dramatically successful in improving some 72 medical conditions” and misleadingly suggested that embryonic stem cell research has “yet to show any benefit to mice.” Hochevar also distorted DeGette's bill, suggesting it would turn “fertility clinics into modern-day killing fields.”

On August 9, 2001, citing ethical concerns, President Bush announced that federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research would be restricted to cell lines that had been established as of that date. DeGette co-authored a bill to reverse Bush's decision and, as noted by The Denver Post, “helped assemble a coalition that passed a stem-cell bill in the House over the objections of GOP leaders, Bush and social conservatives.” DeGette's bill, which awaited a vote in the Senate when Hochevar's op-ed appeared in the Chieftain, instructed the federal government to support such research regardless of when the cell lines were established. As Hochevar noted in the version of her op-ed published July 22 in the News, President Bush on July 19 vetoed the legislation, which passed the Senate on July 18. The attempt to override Bush's veto failed in the House of Representatives the same day by a vote of 235-193 (a two-thirds majority of those voting, or 286 votes, was necessary to override in the House and send on to the Senate for an override vote in that body).

Hochevar's op-ed appeared in the News as part of a point/counterpoint that included an op-ed in support of DeGette's bill.

In her op-ed, Hochevar first claimed that adult stem cells “have been dramatically successful in improving some 72 medical conditions.” Hochevar appears to be referring to a list generated by David A. Prentice of the conservative Family Research Council and posted on the website of The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics, of which Prentice is a founding member.

In a letter published July 13 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) on its Science Express website, researchers Shane Smith, William Neaves, and Steven Teitelbaum stated that, in fact, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved only nine adult stem cell treatments. The authors had reviewed an earlier 65-item version of the list and examined the references -- many of them peer reviewed articles -- that Prentice cited. According to the authors, “A review of those references reveals that Prentice not only misrepresents existing adult stem cell treatments but also frequently distorts the nature and content of the references he cites.” For instance, as the letter noted, “The reference Prentice cites for testicular cancer on his list does not report patient response to adult stem cell therapy; it simply evaluates different methods of adult stem cell isolation.” Similarly, according to the letter, “The reference Prentice cites on non-Hodgkin's lymphoma does not assess the treatment value of adult stem cell transplantation; rather, it describes culture conditions for the laboratory growth of stem cells from lymphoma patients.” According to its website, Science Express publishes “selected research papers, Perspectives, and other articles that have recently been accepted for publication in Science [magazine].”

After noting accurately that embryonic stem cell research has not yet resulted in treatments for human ailments, Hochevar asked, “Wouldn't it be more practical to use finite public funds (your tax dollars) for research on treatment strategies that have proved their worth than to divert those funds into research that has yet to show any benefit to mice, let alone humans?” By comparison, as William B. Neaves observed in a July 14 United Press International analysis, "[T]he nine approved treatments for adult stem cells have been developed after 50 years of research with the cells. The first human embryonic stem cells were isolated only 8 years ago." A co-author of the July 13 Science Express letter, Neaves is president and CEO of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City, Missouri.

Moreover, embryonic stem cell research has in fact shown promise in experiments on rodents. On June 20, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced successful experiments with rats in which, “for the first time, researchers have enticed transplants of embryonic stem cell-derived motor neurons in the spinal cord to connect with muscles and partially restore function in paralyzed animals. The study suggests that similar techniques may be useful for treating such disorders as spinal cord injury, transverse myelitis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and spinal muscular atrophy.”

Hochevar concluded by suggesting that DeGette's legislation could "[transform] fertility clinics into modern-day killing fields." However, the language of the legislation actually stipulates that the only embryos eligible for use in federally funded medical research would be those that “were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking [fertility] treatment and would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded (as determined in consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment).” The legislation therefore would not affect any more embryos than the number that already are discarded as superfluous following in vitro fertilization treatments.

From Hochevar's July 22 Rocky Mountain News op-ed, “Therapies derived from embryonic stem cells have had ghastly results”:

Embryos are not the only source for stem cells. These remarkable cells that have the flexibility to transform themselves into other types of cells can be found in umbilical cord blood, amniotic fluid, bone marrow, muscle tissue and skin tissue, to name just a few other sources. All of these sources fall into a category called “adult stem cells.”

It is these adult stem cells that have been dramatically successful in improving some 72 medical conditions, including various forms of leukemia, juvenile arthritis, corneal regeneration, spinal cord injury, sickle cell anemia, and liver cirrhosis.

On the other hand, the total number of benefits to human patients using embryonic stem cells is ... zero!

The real “no-brainer” question is: Wouldn't it be more practical to use finite public funds (your tax dollars) for research on treatment strategies that have proved their worth than to divert those funds into research that has yet to show any benefit to mice, let alone humans?

[...]

And finally, should we publicly fund the transformation of fertility clinics into modern-day killing fields? How tragic that DeGette is sponsoring legislation that causes us to even consider such barbaric behavior.

From the version of Hochevar's op-ed, headlined “Don't approve embryonic stem cell research,” in the July 18 edition of The Pueblo Chieftain:

Embryos are not the only source for stem cells. These remarkable cells that have the flexibility to transform themselves into other types of cells can be found in umbilical cord blood, amniotic fluid, bone marrow, muscle tissue and skin tissue, to name just a few other sources.

These adult stem cells have been dramatically successful in improving some 72 medical conditions, including various forms of leukemia, juvenile arthritis, corneal regeneration, spinal cord injury, sickle cell anemia and liver cirrhosis.

On the other hand, the total number of benefits to human patients using embryonic stem cells is zero!

The real question is: Wouldn't it be more practical to use the finite amount of public funds (your tax dollars) for research on treatment strategies that have proved their worth than to divert those funds into research that has yet to show any benefit to mice, let alone humans?

[...]

Finally, should we publicly fund the transformation of fertility clinics into modern day killing fields? How tragic that Rep. DeGette is sponsoring legislation that causes us to even consider such barbaric behavior.

* While the two versions of Hochevar's op-ed were nearly identical, they contained minor differences in wording and punctuation. Quotes from Hochevar's op-ed appearing in this item come from the version published by the Rocky Mountain News on July 22. The op-eds, as they appeared in both the News and The Pueblo Chieftain, are excerpted above.