Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the base bill and in support of the substitute, the Greenwood-Deutsch substitute.
Generally speaking, there are three types of stem cell research. There is adult stem cell research which shows great promise, but with limitations in that adult stem cells cannot be differentiated into each and every type of cell.
There is embryonic stem cell work which shows even more promise because it does have the ability to be differentiated into a variety of stem cell lines for therapy and treatment.
But perhaps the most promising is embryonic stem cell research that employs the technique of somatic cell nuclear transfer. The primary benefit of this research and therapy is simple: It is not rejected by the patient. What that means for a child who is diabetic, you can use that child's own DNA, place it into a fertilized egg, develop Islet cells that will help that child produce insulin with the benefit it will not be rejected by the child.
What we are saying, if we allow stem cell research but we prohibit the research in this bill, we are saying we will allow stem cell research, but only if the patient will reject the therapy. What sense does that make when the substitute prohibits cloning for reproduction, prohibits the implantation of a fertilized egg with a donated set of DNA into a uterus for the purpose of giving birth to a child? That is prohibited under both bill and substitute.
But we need the research. We are losing scientists who are going overseas to conduct this research. The base bill even precludes us from benefiting from the research done in other countries. This cannot be allowed to go on.
Mr. Speaker, this is important to all of our futures. We must preserve this vital science research. I urge adoption of the substitute and rejection of the base bill.