Red Cross Shifts, Rejects Pioneering Stem Cell Grant

WASHINGTON — In an unexpected twist to the stem cell controversy, the American Red Cross has decided to turn down what would have been the first federal grant devoted to research using stem cells from human embryos.

The decision suggested that stem cell research, widely touted as the greatest hope for new cures for disease, has become so controversial that some major research institutions might be scared away, research advocates said.

After a bitter debate over the morality of the research, the government has finally cleared the way for scientists to receive federal money for stem cell experiments this year. However, the promise of the research depends on scientists stepping forward to apply for the grants, advocates for the work said.

A Red Cross scientist applied for a grant last year, and the National Institutes of Health announced Thursday morning that it was the first award to be approved. But Thursday afternoon, the Red Cross said it had decided not to accept the grant in order to focus on other areas of research.

Dr. Jerry Squires, chief scientific officer at the charity’s biomedical division, said the decision was based on new scientific priorities and had nothing to do with a desire to avoid controversy that might scare away donors.

But some research groups said they feared the reversal was due to other reasons.

“I think you can assume from this decision that the political debate has a chilling effect on scientific pursuits,” said Sean Tipton, spokesman for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. “If you depend on funding from the goodwill of politicians or the goodwill of the public, then you stay away from controversy.”

Anthony Mazzaschi, assistant vice president for biomedical research at the Assn. of American Medical Colleges, said it was “a rare event” for a research group to turn down a grant after asking for it. “I find it very disturbing, because it sends a bad message,” he said. “The winds may have shifted at the Red Cross, but the needs of patients and researchers to cure disease have not.”

The research is controversial because human embryos must be destroyed to obtain the stem cells, which are medically valuable and may guide researchers to new cures for disease. Some large charities, such as the American Heart Assn., have decided not to give prominent support to the research, fearing that it will anger donors. Some observers say the Red Cross already faces a risk to its donor base, thanks to widespread criticism of its handling of blood and monetary donations after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Scientists and patient groups mounted a massive lobbying campaign last year to persuade President Bush to allow federal funding for the experiments. In a televised address Aug. 9, Bush said he would allow federal funds to be used for research using cells from about 60 embryos that had already been destroyed at private laboratories. But Bush said the government would not fund any research that requires new embryos to be destroyed.

On Thursday, the NIH said it had approved a $50,000 grant on Jan. 15 to Robert Hawley, who studies the growth and regulation of blood and immune cells at a Red Cross laboratory in Rockville, Md.

Hawley already has an NIH grant to study how blood stem cells--the precursors to blood and immune-system cells--are produced in mice. Squires said the grant totaled at least $1 million. The additional grant was to allow him to do similar work with human cells.

The grant would have marked the first time federal money had gone to research that depended on the destruction of human embryos. But Hawley would not have worked with embryos himself. He planned to obtain stem cells from WiCell Research Institute Inc. of Wisconsin, which had dissected human embryos to produce stem cells before Aug. 9, in accordance with Bush’s policy.

Squires said Hawley had requested the grant last summer. But in late July or August, Squires became chief scientific officer and charted a new direction for the research group, Squires said Thursday.

Squires said he wants Hawley and other researchers to focus on stem cells from umbilical cord blood, which can help people with leukemia, certain metabolic diseases and those who are undergoing chemotherapy.

“We really need to focus our resources, our attention, on those areas where we could most likely provide, in the shortest period of time, some therapies for patients,” Squires said. “And since we already had a very strong program in cord blood research and were already providing some therapies in that area, it seemed appropriate to me to enhance our abilities in that area.”

Squires said that in Hawley, the Red Cross was already making a substantial effort to understand how blood stem cells arise in the bodies of mice. But for Hawley to begin working with human cells “gets us into a different area using different kinds of cells.”

“Human embryonic stem cells have the capacity to fray and disperse our focus. . . . It isn’t fitting with our mission,” Squires said.

The decision appeared to take the NIH by surprise. Dr. Wendy Baldwin, an NIH official responsible for grants to off-campus researchers, said early Thursday afternoon that the Red Cross grant showed that the agency was “making real progress” at implementing the stem cell policy Bush outlined in August.

“We’ve made our first award. . . . I am very pleased at how this has gone on,” Baldwin said, apparently unaware of the Red Cross reversal.

Representatives for several research groups said the Red Cross decision did not suggest a lack of enthusiasm for stem cell research among scientists. NIH spokeswoman Anne Thomas said Thursday evening: “We have a funding process in place. Scientists know how to use that process, and we’re looking forward to funding research along these lines.”