FROM: Columbia Daily Tribune (Missouri)

UM defends cell research
State shouldn’t ban practice, Floyd says.

By JOSH FLORY and NATE CARLISLE of the Tribune’s staff
Published Wednesday, December 22, 2004

The University of Missouri has plunged into the middle of a contentious
legislative debate by urging lawmakers to reject a ban on a cloning
procedure known as somatic cell nuclear transfer.

UM President Elson Floyd was one of four leaders of research institutions
who signed a letter to lawmakers that said scientists who use the
procedure "should be encouraged, not made criminals."

Somatic cell nuclear transfer erupted into a hot-button campaign issue
this year after efforts to pass a ban faltered in the General Assembly.
Opponents of nuclear transfer say it results in the creation of a human
embryo, or clone, which is later destroyed by the removal of stem cells
for research. Supporters reject the notion that a human clone is created
and say the procedure could result in cures for diseases such as
Parkinson’s.

Somatic cell nuclear transfer is a means of producing embryonic stem
cells, which are considered valuable for research because they have the
potential to turn into a variety of cells, such as muscle or nerve cells.
In nuclear transfer, the nucleus of an unfertilized egg is removed and
replaced with the nucleus of another cell. After the cell is stimulated
to divide and form a blastula, stem cells can be extracted within days.
That process results in the destruction of the blastula.

State Sen. Matt Bartle, R-Lee’s Summit, filed legislation this year that
would ban the procedure. Bartle and opponents of nuclear transfer argue
the process creates a human life, pointing out that Dolly the sheep was
created by the same process.

One of the staunchest opponents of nuclear transfer is the Missouri
Catholic Conference.

Opponents of the legislation, though, say that even if the blastula were
allowed to continue dividing and form an embryo, it would never become a
baby because it wouldn’t be implanted into a uterus. They also argue that
cloning an animal is a mistake-prone process.

In their letter, dated Dec. 17, Floyd and leaders of the Donald Danforth
Plant Science Center, the Stowers Institute for Medical Research and
Washington University in St. Louis argued that nuclear transfer does not
create a new life. The signers said legislation such as Bartle’s would
"go far beyond preventing a cloned baby or fetus and instead stop the
people of Missouri from engaging in the age-old and noble effort to heal
the sick, an act of compassion endorsed by all major religions."

Larry Weber, executive director of the Missouri Catholic Conference, said
this morning that "at some point, science and ethics" have "to meet."

"The ends don’t justify the means," he added. "Science without ethics is
wrong, and that’s what’s being proposed here."

The move by Floyd is somewhat unusual because it results in UM taking
sides on a hot-button social issue. On the other hand, opposition to
somatic cell nuclear transfer isn’t universal even among lawmakers who
say they are opposed to abortion. For instance, outgoing Senate leader
Peter Kinder, R-Cape Girardeau, and Gov.-elect Matt Blunt favor allowing
nuclear transfer even though both are opponents of abortion.

State Sen.-elect Chuck Graham, D-Columbia, who campaigned on his support
for stem cell research and nuclear transfer, said this morning that he
was "pleasantly surprised" by Floyd’s action. Graham noted that when the
issue was debated in political campaigns earlier this year, the
university’s Columbia campus issued a statement saying its officials
would not "speculate on any proposed legislation as it relates to stem
cell research."

Rep. Jim Lembke, R-St. Louis, plans to file a ban on nuclear transfer
this year. Lembke said he was surprised Floyd signed the letter, and the
lawmaker said he would take the position into account when he votes on
state appropriations to the university. Lembke said Floyd’s position is
"very questionable ethically and morally and a great concern … to many of
my constituents and constituents across the state."

A university spokesman said Floyd was out of town this morning and not
available for comment.

Of the four letter-signers, the UM system is the only institution that
gets operating funds from the state. Whether UM’s stance on nuclear
transfer will have an impact on its budget is less clear, though.

Rep. Carl Bearden, a St. Charles Republican who is outgoing chairman of
the Budget Committee, predicted a limited budget impact because of the
division among lawmakers and because there is some confusion about the
issue.

"If the university opened up an abortion clinic, I think that would be a
different story," he said.

John Critser, a professor of pathobiology at the Columbia campus, uses
nuclear transfer in research on mice.

Although Critser said he doesn’t plan to do any work with human nuclear
transfer, he opposes a ban.

"It would seriously prohibit the university’s ability to participate in
cutting-edge research and developing biotechnology related to new
therapeutic medicine, as well as improved agriculture," he said.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Reach Josh Flory at (573) 815-1719 or [log in to unmask]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------

  http://www.columbiatribune.com/2004/Dec/20041222News001.asp

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn