Stem cell division
The growing blue state-red state gap over this research shows that science 
has serious economic and political muscle in America today.
By Peter Dizikes
Salon Composite, Photo: Reuters/Alan Trounson/California Institute for 
Regenerative Medicine/Handout
May 11, 2009 | When Barack Obama removed George W. Bush's ban on federal 
funding for new embryonic stem cell research in March, the president cast 
his decision as part of a larger effort to remove politics from science. No 
longer would research, Obama said, be shackled by a "false choice between 
sound science and moral values."

It turns out the president cannot separate politics and science so easily. 
No sooner had Obama issued his order than conservative lawmakers in state 
legislatures began proposing new restrictions on embryonic stem cell 
research, ranging from criminal penalties to bans on state-level funding. In 
fact, Obama's decision has emboldened conservatives to increasingly link 
stem cell research to abortion. Far from conceding the issue, they are in it 
for the long haul.

But the stem cell battle is not just a high-profile clash of values. The 
dispute provides a sharp focus on how science may help reshape America. 
Several states have set aside billions of dollars to support stem cell 
research, and the new federal money Obama is promising will generally flow 
to those areas. That means states supporting stem cell research will 
experience an economic windfall while attracting highly educated technology 
workers who tend to vote Democratic. The more conservative states 
restricting stem cell research will attract fewer funds and fewer socially 
liberal voters. In short, a state's stem cell policy will influence 
electoral results and help determine whether a state turns red or blue.

At the moment, stem cell science mirrors November's electoral map. Twelve 
states allow the use of public money to fund stem cell research -- and Obama 
won them all in 2008. Four states have moved to either restrict stem cell 
research or limit public expenditures for it since Obama's announcement --  
and they all voted for John McCain. But now that map could change.

In stem cell politics, key battlegrounds include Georgia, Texas and 
Arizona -- red states where Obama and the Democrats made inroads. These are 
places that have significant academic and scientific infrastructures but 
that Republicans control politically. Restrictions on science there could 
slow the kind of economic growth associated with Democratic support. At the 
same time, the GOP is putting its popularity at risk by curbing research 
that most voters support. The new regional political dynamic of the stem 
cell war is set.

Most cells are specialized. Your various forms of white blood cells fight 
illnesses, while red blood cells help oxygen circulate in the body. Stem 
cells are unspecialized, waiting to be assigned roles. If we could give stem 
cells the right biological instructions, we could use them to repair damaged 
body parts such as heart muscle cells, limiting heart disease.

Adult stem cells help maintain a particular bodily organ or tissue. The 
brain has its own reserve supply of adult stem cells. But embryonic stem 
cells have not yet been directed to a particular body part, increasing their 
potential value. They might help fix any organ or tissue.

Extracting the stem cells from a days-old embryo, usually acquired from an 
in vitro fertilization clinic, destroys the embryo. Many scientists have 
argued that since clinics produce more embryos than they use, employing the 
remaining ones for medicine is ethically justified. But stem cell research 
opponents disagree and have responded by trying to alter the practices of 
fertility clinics.

In 2007, researchers announced the development of induced pluripotent stem 
cells (IPSCs) in humans -- adult cells reprogrammed to mimic embryonic stem 
cells. In theory, IPSCs could bring the political battle over stem cells to 
an end, since producing them does not involve embryos. But many scientific 
hurdles remain to be cleared before IPSCs can be considered a safe and 
complete replacement for embryonic stem cells.

In 2001, Bush announced a ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell 
research, except for work on a limited number of already existing stem cell 
"lines." Since then, 12 states have funded stem cell research themselves. 
California's program, at $3 billion, is the biggest. The state aims to build 
a dozen stem cell facilities at universities and other research institutes 
and says it has awarded more than $600 million in research money so far.

The overall economic impact of the biotech industry is even greater than the 
numbers suggest, as industry earnings create a "multiplier effect" that 
ripples through a local economy. In California, such activity includes the 
construction workers building the new Mission Bay research facility for the 
University of California at San Francisco, and the service industries that 
grow around well-paid technology workers. A 2004 Milken Institute report 
estimated that every biotechnology job in California creates an additional 
3.5 jobs. In 2003, industry earnings in California totaled about $5 billion 
but created about $21 billion in overall economic output.

States not investing in stem cell science are missing out on this bonanza. 
Not only is this part of biotech economically regenerative, but it's also 
popular. A 2007 Gallup Poll showed that by a 64-to-30 margin, Americans 
think embryonic stem cell research is "morally acceptable." But social 
conservatives such as Oklahoma state Rep. Mike Reynolds, disagree. Reynolds 
introduced a bill making it a misdemeanor to conduct research on embryonic 
stem cells. "I am a pro-life candidate, and I believe life begins at 
conception," Reynolds says.

In Georgia, a bill under consideration would put limits on both stem cell 
research and in vitro fertility clinic practices. "A person is a person no 
matter how small," says Dan Becker, president of Georgia Right to Life. 
"There is a paradigm shift going on, a shift toward personhood. You're going 
to see more states adopt that strategy." Indeed, bills in Texas and 
Mississippi would bar state funding for embryonic stem cell research. 
Arizona is among the states already featuring similar laws.

But Georgia best exemplifies the political and economic issues at stake. The 
state "is a prime example of the legislative revolt as a result of Obama's 
executive order," says Patrick Kelly, director of state government relations 
at Bio, an umbrella group representing biotechnology firms.

Georgia may be red on electoral maps, but in November, Obama lost to McCain 
there by a mere 5 points -- the best showing by any Democratic presidential 
candidate, apart from Southerners Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, since 1960. 
Democratic challenger Jim Martin forced incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. Saxby 
Chambliss to a runoff with a 3-point loss, although Chambliss' subsequent 
15-point victory shows that a real gap still exists.

In March, the Georgia Senate passed a stem cell bill that limits new 
embryonic stem cell research and prevents couples who use in vitro 
fertilization clinics from authorizing the destruction of their own 
remaining embryos. The state House of Representatives may take up the bill 
in the fall. The measure shows how conservatives are linking stem cell 
research to abortion by promoting the "personhood" of embryos.
"We've been good at spinning many antiabortion scenarios," Becker says. 
"What we've failed to do is personalize the embryo issue. We're shifting and 
attacking the position that in the first trimester this is nothing other 
than a medical blob. This is a human being." Georgia Right to Life has 
created television spots to reinforce the message.

The bill's opponents emphasize their own moral interests. The legislation 
"would tell patients that we are not interested in helping them," says 
Charles Craig, president of Georgia Bio, which is lobbying against the bill 
along with various patients' rights organizations.
As far as the economic consequences, Craig believes that "if Georgia were to 
restrict science considered legal and ethical by the federal government, it 
would send a message that Georgia is out of step, and possibly anti-science 
and anti-technology."
Next page: Stem cell research helps a state's economy, but does that matter 
at the ballot box?

Rayilyn Brown
Director AZNPF
Arizona Chapter National Parkinson Foundation
[log in to unmask] 

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