PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 23, 2007
Hope Offered through Principled, Ethically-Sound Stem Cell Research Act or the HOPE Act - Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research to develop techniques for the isolation, derivation, production, or testing of pluripotent stem cells that have the flexibility of embryonic stem cells and that may result in improved understanding of, or treatments for, diseases and other adverse health conditions, provided that such techniques do not involve: (1) the creation of a viable human embryo for research purposes; (2) the destruction or discarding of a human embryo; or (3) knowingly subjecting a human embryo to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed on fetuses in utero.
Establishes the National Stem Cell Research Review Board to: (1) monitor research to ensure that it is in compliance with this Act; (2) prioritize research with the greatest potential for near term benefits; and (3) ensure fair consideration of both embryonic and adult stem cell research for funding.
Sets forth consent requirements for the donation of materials for research.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Applies federal provisions protecting individually identifiable health information to donors.
Amends the National Organ Transplant Act to prohibit the transfer of any human ovum, human blastocyst, human embryo, or stem cell derived from a human embryo for valuable consideration.
Amends the Public Health Service Act to prohibit any person from knowingly receiving any valuable consideration for any therapy that: (1) affects interstate commerce or is funded by federal assistance; and (2) utilizes cells from a human embryo if the process of deriving such cells destroyed the embryo.
People & committees
Sen. Coleman, Norm [R-MN] · R–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.363 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.363 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.363 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.363 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.