OUR VIEW: STEM RESEARCH: Betting on the people


Thursday, Oct. 13 2005

BACKERS OF STEM CELL research in Missouri have announced an audacious bid to
make sure that Missourians are not denied the benefits of this promising new
field of medicine.

A coalition of medical researchers, foundations and Washington University has
announced a petition drive designed to put a state constitutional amendment on
the ballot in the November 2006 election. Two high-profile backers of the
ballot initiative are Dr. William Danforth, a physician and former chancellor
of Washington University, and his brother, former U.S. Sen. John C. Danforth,
an attorney and Episcopal minister. The family foundation that bears their name
has invested tens of millions of dollars in making St. Louis a hub for
biomedical and plant sciences research.

The proposed constitutional amendment would keep therapeutic stem cell research
legal, while banning the reproductive cloning of human beings. It also would
circumvent the Missouri Legislature, where there have been persistent and
misguided efforts to criminalize stem cell research.

The referendum strategy carries risks. If the measure fails, it would be the
equivalent of hanging out a “Do Not Enter” sign for medical research and any
biotechnology firms that might consider setting up shop in Missouri. Failure
could deliver a permanent economic and scientific setback to the state. But
backers are confident they can succeed, partly because their polls show that
Missourians favor stem cell research 2-to-1.

Stem cells can develop into any type of tissue in the human body. Because of
their mutability, they hold great potential to repair damaged tissue.
Scientists imagine a day in the not-too-distant future when stem cell therapies
will help regenerate damaged spinal cords or repair damaged hearts. Stem cells
might be used to restore damaged areas of the brain, curing diseases such as
Parkinson’s and ALS.

Adult stem cells have some potential in research, but scientists believe the
highest potential lies with early stem cells derived from two sources. One is
from “somatic cell nuclear transfer,” in which a patient’s own genetic material
is inserted into an unfertilized human egg and grown into an early embryo. The
other source is surplus human embryos created through in vitro fertilization,
that would otherwise be discarded.

A bill proposed in the Legislature this year would have criminalized some kinds
of stem cell research. The bill failed, thanks in part to opposition from Gov.
Matt Blunt. But the bill has strong support in Jefferson City and its backers
plan to try again.

But great rewards demand great risk, and stem cell research holds the promise
of great rewards in at least three areas:

• Human hope — The hopes of children paralyzed by spinal cord injuries that
they might some day walk again. The hopes of those suffering from Parkinson’s
disease and multiple sclerosis that they might some day be free from
debilitating tremors and fatigue. The hope of a young girl with a faulty heart
that cells from her own body might be used to grow a healthy new heart.

• Scientific progress — Stem cell research is a shining frontier. Already,
scientists in other countries and other states are in hot pursuit of treatments
to relieve suffering and lead to unimaginable cures. Institutions like the
Stowers Institute in Kansas City and Washington University will not be able to
retain the best and brightest students and investigators if cutting edge
research is banned in Missouri.

• Economic gain— If Missouri wants to become a competitive biotechnology
center, it cannot afford to have a reputation as a scientific backwater — or
worse, as a place that criminalizes research. Grants worth billions of dollars
would go elsewhere.

Opponents of stem cell research are motivated by a deeply held moral and
religious beliefs concerning the beginnings of human life. They believe that
using stem cells harvested from discarded early embryos is the equivalent of
killing a person. Others confuse therapeutic cloning with reproductive cloning
— the kind that has produced cats, dogs, mice and sheep genetically identical
to their parent.

The proposed referendum lays out careful definitions and distinctions. It would
ban human reproductive cloning or the production of early-stage embryos solely
for research. It would ban the buying and selling human eggs and embryos. There
would be stringent oversight, clear ethical standards and informed consent
requirements for research. The amendment would keep stem cell research legal in
Missouri provided that it complies with federal law.

Passage of the constitutional amendment would keep the doors of Missouri’s
research labs open to important scientific innovation and cures that could
benefit all mankind.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

FROM ROY TEMPLE'S BLOG:
http://www.firedupmissouri.com/blog/2


FIGHTING ERUPTS IN ABORTION WARS
By Roy Temple
Created 10/20/2005 - 8:51am

After a several month cease fire, renewed fighting broke out recently in the Missouri abortion wars. Here is a press release issued by Missouri Right To Life regarding Governor Matt Blunt:

MISSOURI RIGHT TO LIFE QUESTIONS GOVERNOR

MATT BLUNT’S PRO-LIFE CREDENTIALS

The Board of Directors of Missouri Right to Life announced today that Governor Matt Blunt can no longer be considered pro-life because of his support of an initiative petition that would establish in the Missouri Constitution the right to do cloning and embryonic stem cell research, and to use tax dollars to pay for these procedures.

On October 11, 2005, a coalition that is powered by the billion-dollar Stowers Foundation of Kansas City announced a petition drive for the “Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative.” Governor Matt Blunt has given his support to the initiative, which is advertised as a measure that bans cloning while assuring that “ethical stem cell research” is guaranteed in Missouri law.

......

By supporting this initiative, the Governor has broken faith with the tens of thousands of pro-life volunteers around the state who helped elect him. He has broken his pledge not to support using public money to pay for cloning or embryonic stem cell research. He has broken his pledge not to allow any research that uses human embryos created by in-vitro fertilization (IVF). He has reversed his campaign position stated to Missouri Right to Life of opposing cloning, whether it is therapeutic cloning or reproductive cloning. He can no longer be considered a pro-life official.

The “Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative” represents a serious threat to human life in Missouri because of the provisions outlined above. It would divert the state’s limited resources from already-tested, effective adult stem cell research to governmentally-funded experimentation that sacrifices human embryos for benefits that will not be realized for decades, if at all. Every legitimate pro-life organization in Missouri opposes it. So should the Governor.

Source URL:
http://www.firedupmissouri.com/node/2881

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

MISSOURI'S INITIATIVE IS SPLITTING STATE'S GOP
By Jo Mannies
Post-Dispatch Political Correspondent
10/15/2005

Stem cell research is once again driving a wedge within Missouri’s Republican Party, pitting business interests who bankroll its campaigns against the social conservatives who help pack the polls.

Some fear that the dispute could spill over into some of the GOP’s key contests on the November 2006 ballot — especially the re-election bid of U.S. Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo.

The concern is that the Republican Party’s infighting could repel its voters or donors. "If you split our base, what does that do to you in a tough election year?" asked state Rep. Jim Lembke, R-south St. Louis County. "This could get messy."

Lembke is an opponent of the initiative petition, announced last week, to protect most forms of stem cell research.

Two of the state’s most prominent Republicans — Gov. Matt Blunt and former Sen. John C. Danforth — support the initiative. So do many of the GOP’s most influential business donors, such as Clayton businessman Sam Fox.

Among the opponents are the state’s anti-abortion groups, including the Missouri Catholic Conference and Missouri Right to Life, who campaign, canvass or educate about like-minded candidates, many of them Republicans.

"I think anything that divides or alienates the Republican Party from its pro-life base is going to impact the party’s ticket at all levels," said Right to Life president Pam Fichter.

Talent is in the toughest position, initiative opponents say, because he is a co-sponsor of federal legislation that would ban various forms of embryonic stem cell research that the initiative seeks to protect.

Anti-abortion groups, who long have been among his core supporters, say he must oppose the initiative or lose their support.

"That’s what we expect of him," said Sam Lee, head of Campaign Life Missouri, an anti-abortion lobbying group. "We expect him to be a leader."

But anti-abortion activists fear that Talent may choose to side with Fox and other business allies instead.

Fox said Friday that he is indeed donating a lot of money to the initiative effort. But he added that he also will continue to support Talent, despite their differences over some forms of stem cell research.

"There’s no reason to expect unanimity on all issues," Fox said, adding that he thought Talent was "doing a wonderful job in Washington."

Talent spokesman Rich Chrismer has said the senator is closely following the debate over various forms of stem cell research, but has no plans to drop his support for the federal measure.

As for the initiative, Chrismer said in a statement, "Like all Missourians, (Talent) is going to take a close look at it and decide whether it strikes the right balance between the importance of life-saving medical research and the importance of respecting the dignity of human life at all stages."

Talent’s Democratic rival — state Auditor Claire McCaskill — is underscoring her general support for stem cell research, although a spokesman added that she still needs to study the initiative before taking an official position.

"Claire McCaskill strongly supports research into lifesaving cures and would never support criminalizing it," said spokesman Tony Wyche.

State Democratic Party spokesman Jack Cardetti used virtually the same words in laying out his party’s position. He also noted that passage of Talent’s federal measure would nullify the state initiative.

Meanwhile, Republican Party spokesman John Hancock and Fox offered similar assessments of why they thought the initiative would have no impact on candidates at the polls.

Both said the proposal would ease the pressure on candidates of either party because it would leave the decision up to voters.

Donn Rubin, chairman of the group heading up the stem cell effort — the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures — sought to make the same point.

"Our mission is nonpartisan," Rubin said. "There’s no reason to believe that this measure should have any effect on candidates."

Battle brewing

In about a month, the pro-stem cell coalition plans to begin collecting the necessary signatures from registered voters needed to put the measure on the November 2006 ballot. The minimum number needed will be 139,181.

If approved by voters, the initiative would amend the state constitution to protect all stem cell research, therapy and cures that are legal under federal law.

The proposed constitutional amendment also bans human cloning, and prevents stem cells from being harvested more than 14 days after cell division.

A key point of contention for abortion opponents is a provision that would allow research on leftover embryos from in vitro fertilization, with the approval of the embryo donors.

Fichter with Right to Life says Blunt has promised to block such research.

Blunt spokesman Spence Jackson replied, "He is opposed to that provision. But he believes that this petition, overall, is the best solution to banning human cloning while protecting responsible research, that’s been put forward thus far."

Lee, among other initiative opponents, suggests that Blunt consider putting the stem cell measure on the August 2006 ballot, since he controls when any initiative goes before voters.

Since voter turnout would be lower than in November, stem cell opponents say that they may have a better chance in August of defeating the initiative. Their selling point to the Republican Party is that such a move also would eliminate any link with Talent’s race for the Senate in November.

Blunt spokesman Jackson said it was way too early to discuss such matters, especially when the signatures have yet to be collected.

Jackson said that Blunt recognized the potential political fallout. But he added, "Governor Blunt makes decisions on what he thinks is in the best interest of the state. Politics is secondary."

jmannies@post-dispatch.com | 314-340-8334

http://www.ky3.com/news/1997462.html?autovid=Y
(TV Station KY3 in Springfield, MO)
(There's a download here that has a back-and-forth between Claire McCaskill and Jim Talent on the stem cell issue. ~MC)



STEM CELL DEBATE COULD AFFECT SENATE RACE
by Dave Catanese, KY3 News

The Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures began its ad blitz last week, asking voters to sign a petition to protect research that it says could some day cure a host of life-threatening diseases. The group needs to get approximately 150,000 signatures to place its initiative on the ballot next November.

While the ads are targeted at voters and state lawmakers, the ads and the great debate over the issue of stem cell research could become a important factor in State Auditor Claire McCaskill's campaign against Sen. Jim Talent.

Jefferson City News Tribune, Online Edition
From Missouri's Capital City
www.newstribune.com

Posted: Tuesday, Nov 29, 2005 - 05:27:01 am CST

LAWSUIT SEEKS TO STOP STEM CELL BALLOT INITIATIVE
By DAVID A. LIEB
Associated Press Writer


Opponents of embryonic stem cell research are suing Missouri's secretary of state to try to block an initiative protecting stem cell research from appearing on the 2006 ballot.

The lawsuit alleges the title of the proposed constitutional amendment is “unfair and deceptive” by claiming to “ban human cloning or attempted human cloning” when actually allowing a contentious cloning procedure.

The lawsuit announced Monday by the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Alliance Defense Fund was filed Wednesday in Cole County Circuit Court. It seeks an injunction barring state officials from placing the issue before voters.

Supporters of stem cell research already have been cleared by Secretary of State Robin Carnahan's office to start gathering the roughly 150,000 petition signatures needed to get their measure on the ballot.

The proposal would guarantee that federally allowed stem cell research and treatments could occur in Missouri. It also would ban human cloning, which it defines as the effort to create a baby by implanting an embryo that was not fertilized by sperm into a woman's uterus.

But the proposal would allow what's known as therapeutic cloning, or somatic cell nuclear transfer. In that procedure, the nucleus of an egg is replaced with the nucleus from something such as a skin or nerve cell. The altered egg then is stimulated to grow in a lab dish, and researchers remove the resulting stem cells.

The lawsuit asserts the procedure results in a cloned human embryo and that the ballot proposal deceptively attempts to rewrite the definition of human cloning.

“If the people of Missouri are going to vote on this issue, they should at least be given a fair chance to vote their conscience on matters of life and death,” David LaPlante, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said in a written statement. “The voters deserve to know that the proposed ballot initiative would create a constitutional right to treat human life as a commodity and raw material for unethical human experimentation”

The Alliance Defense Fund's Web site says it pursues cases “protecting religious freedom, the sanctity of human life, and traditional family values.”

The lead plaintiff is a Jefferson City-based group called Missourians Against Human Cloning, incorporated Nov. 17 by Larry Weber, the executive director of the Missouri Catholic Conference, which opposes the ballot initiative.

Weber did not immediately return telephone calls Monday.

Five individuals also are plaintiffs: David and Sarah Mason, of St. Joseph; William Biermann of Barnhart; Tammy Coleman, of Raytown; and Mary Weber, of Mokane. The lawsuit says some plaintiffs suffer from injuries or diseases.

Supporters of early stem cell research hope it can lead to a cure for ailments such as diabetes, Parkinson's disease, cancer and spinal cord injuries.

The ballot measure is backed by a group of researchers and patient advocacy groups called the Missouri Coalition for LifeSaving Cures, which as of mid-October already had raised nearly $3.3 million. The group began running television advertisements Nov. 18 urging people to sign its petitions.

Coalition spokeswoman Connie Farrow said the lawsuit has no merit. But she said initiative supporters likely will wait until the legal challenge is resolved to begin gathering petition signatures.

“Basically, this lawsuit appears to be a public relations ploy led by an out-of-state organization,” Farrow said.

The secretary of state's office defended its ballot title summary of the initiative.

“State law requires the secretary of state to write ballot language that isn't likely to create prejudice either for or against a proposed measure,” said Carnahan spokesman Mike Seitz. “We're confident the language for this initiative is fair and complies with the state law.”

The lawsuit also challenges the ballot measure's cost estimate approved by State Auditor Claire McCaskill's office as being insufficient. The suit claims the initiative would restrict the ability of government officials to eliminate, cut or withhold money appropriated in connection with embryonic stem cell research.

www.firedupmissouri.com

TALENT TOO WEAK TO TAKE STEMCELL STAND; BLOGOSPHERE NOTES SENATOR'S FEET OF CLAY

Submitted by Jeff Mazur on Wed, 12/14/2005 - 4:33pm.

A quick surf today around the internets yields a number of prominent bloggers taking note of Jim Talent's teeter-totter routine on the matter of stemcell research. Talent's efforts to have things both ways on what has become a divisive issue for Republicans is yet another indication that Talent is too weak to stand up for Missouri's interests as our United States Senator.

At issue is some fancy dancing by Talent yesterday on where, precisely, he stands on the matter of somatic cell nuclear transfer:

"I've always had an open mind on continuing to evaluate my position, because the technology is changing. Almost every week we see an announcement which reveals something some new about cloning."

This is interesting, of course, since Talent is the sponsor of Federal legislation which would criminalize the very procedure on which he now claims to have "an open mind". If this sounds to you like such a weak stand for a United States Senator to take that it hardly qualifies as a "stand" at all, you're not alone.

This afternoon, DavidNYC at the Swing-State Project calls Talent out for the above quotation, rightfully accusing him of an inspired bit of politically motivated waffling:

Talent's own starring bill outlaws SCNT! And yet he can't answer a direct question about whether it ought to be allowed in his home state. What, does he think the text of the bill says, "It shall be unlawful to perform human cloning in every state except Missouri?" If Talent imagines he can pirouette his way through the general election on stem cells, he'll be about as successful as John Kerry was in avoiding the subject of the war in Iraq.

Swing-State Project is joined in its recognition of Talent's weak-willed duplicity by Alec Oveis, a contributor to Tapped, the group blog of The American Prospect magazine. Oveis, shortly after DavidNYC, puts up a post which does a bit of explaining of the transparent political calculus that is driving Talent's apparent mushiness on the stemcell issue:

The issue is expected to be the focal point of the 2006 Senate race in Missouri, where Sen. Jim Talent has come under attack for co-sponsoring a bill that would ban somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), also known as therapeutic cloning. Many of the state’s Republicans, including Governor Matt Blunt and former Senator Jack Danforth, are opposed to the measure for a number of reasons, including the fact that it would hurt the state’s business interests. Missouri, it just so happens, is home to some important stem-cell research centers, and as Republican consultant Jack Cashill points out, ”Talent is caught between cultural Republicans who support him now on moral grounds and business Republicans who contribute to campaigns and who see the technology as a growing business for Missouri.”

What makes matters worse for Talent is that Missouri voters may have a chance to vote on the issue in 2006 when the Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative could appear on the ballot.

Oveis and DavidNYC, in concert, make the most important point to be made about Jim Talent-- that he is a man too weak to take a stand on important issues. His vacillation on the SCNT issue, his trying to split the baby (so to speak) between cultural conservatives and big-business-first-Republicans in his base, highlights the spineless weakness which has characterized his term in office. And now it's not just Missourians but folks all across the country who have taken notice.

Jefferson City News Tribune, Online Edition
www.newstribune.com

Posted: Friday, Dec 16, 2005 - 05:43:55 am CST

DEBATE OVER HUMAN LIFE TOOCCUR IN STEM CELL LAWSUIT
By DAVID A. LIEB
Associated Press Writer



The debate over when human life begins will be aired in a Missouri courtroom as part of the legal challenge to a ballot proposal that would protect stem cell research and treatments.

Denying an objection from the state, a Cole County judge said Thursday that he will allow expert testimony on whether a certain form of early stem cell research results in the cloning and destruction of human life.

Opponents of embryonic stem cell research contend it does and assert in their lawsuit that the title of the proposed 2006 ballot measure misleads potential petition signers and voters when it claims to ban human cloning.

A coalition of researchers and patient advocacy groups defend the veracity of their measure and are planning a courtroom counterattack with their own scientific experts.

“I assume we're going to have to go into the question of when does life begin?” Cole County Senior Judge Byron Kinder said while granting the opponents' request to present their experts.

Kinder set a Jan. 19 hearing for the testimony. He also allowed the case to be widened to include representatives of the Missouri Coalition for LifeSaving Cures as defendants and representatives of the Roman Catholic and Southern Baptist churches as plaintiffs.

The original lawsuit was filed last month by the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Alliance Defense Fund on behalf of various Missourians opposed to embryonic stem cell research. Secretary of State Robin Carnahan and Auditor Claire McCaskill were named as defendants because of their roles in crafting the title and cost estimate for the ballot measure.

The lawsuit asks the judge to block the petition signing needed to qualify the measure for the ballot and to declare its title and summary unfair and deceptive. As revised Thursday, the lawsuit also asks the judge to issue - or order state officials to draft - a new ballot title and summary. The lawsuit originally had sought to simply block the measure from the ballot.

The origin of the ballot measure stems from unsuccessful efforts in the Legislature to ban a form of cloning known as somatic cell nuclear transfer.

In that procedure, the nucleus of an egg is replaced with that of a patient's skin cell and then stimulated to divide. The resulting stem cells are removed for use by researchers who hope they can provide treatments for ailments such as diabetes, Parkinson's disease, cancer and spinal cord injuries.

The efforts to outlaw the procedure led supporters to initiate a proposed constitutional amendment guaranteeing that all federally allowed stem cell research can continue to occur in Missouri. That would include somatic cell nuclear transfer and research on embryos created but never used for in vitro fertilization.

The ballot measure specifically bans human cloning, which it defines as an attempt to create a baby by implanting an embryo that was not fertilized by sperm into a woman's uterus.

The lawsuit argues that definition of human cloning is wrong.

“Experts are going to testify, essentially, that the use of procedures like somatic cell nuclear transfer to clone embryos for the purpose of removing stem cells - that product is actually human cloning,” said Kevin Theriot, an Olathe, Kan.-based attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund.

The Coalition for LifeSaving Cures contends its medical scientists can show that “the result of somatic cell nuclear transfer is not a human being,” said coalition spokeswoman Connie Farrow.

“We believe it's a group of cells in a petri dish that are undifferentiated,” and potentially can be turned into cells for any tissue or organ, she said.

The state attorney general's office, which is defending the ballot title, had argued the expert testimony was irrelevant in determining whether the ballot summary fairly describes the full constitutional amendment.