Print

---

#240 Friday, October 20, 2006 - MISSOURI: MONEY vs. WHEELCHAIR WARRIORS

 Recently a friend of this column questioned my statement that the Talent
campaign was out-spending McCaskill 10-1. I had described the GOP sponsored
campaign for the anti-stemcell Talent as "limitless", a tidal wave of cash
for ads inundating Missouri, especially in the last crucial days.
 Turns out I was wrong. It is worse than that.

As Robert Novak noted in a recent column: "Missouri polls show this race on
the razor's edge between Sen. Jim Talent (R) and state Auditor Claire
McCaskill (D). Talent, however, has more than 15 times as much cash
(emphasis added) in his own campaign account for the home stretch-- $4.2
million to $250,000."
But Missouri also has nearly 900,000 voters with a disability*-more than 20%
of the voting public. Being generally poor, unemployed, and lacking in
adequate health care insurance, disabled folks tend to vote Democratic.
If these wheelchair warriors turn out in numbers, even a tsunami of money
may not be enough for the Bush-league Talent.
Recently, I was interviewed by reporter Jason Gertzen of the Kansas City
Star, and am reproducing his article here for you.
States go own way on science
Will Missouri follow path of Indiana or California regarding stem cells and
burgeoning research?
By JASON GERTZEN
The Kansas City Star
Don Reed is convinced that stem-cell research will help his paralyzed son
walk again.
Ed Rivet sees the science as an overly hyped field marred by dubious moral
implications.
Reed, co-founder of Californians for Cures, and Rivet, a longtime lobbyist
for Right to Life of Michigan, are activists on different sides of the
debate, and different parts of the country. But both have played central
roles in stitching a quilt of contrasting state-by-state approaches to
regulating human embryonic stem-cell research.
Missouri voters soon will contribute their own piece to the nationwide
policy patchwork.
A proposed constitutional amendment on the Nov. 7 ballot would offer state
protection for any stem-cell research or cures that are acceptable under
federal law. It also would make it clear that human reproductive cloning is
prohibited. It would not provide any state funding for the research.
The outcome of the vote will influence whether Missouri scientists, doctors
and biotech entrepreneurs will emerge as leaders in the stem-cell field.
The federal government, with tens of billions of dollars to dole out each
year, usually dictates which scientific fields flourish. But because of
President Bush's 2001 policy limiting federal support for certain forms of
stem-cell research, state initiatives like Missouri's have taken center
stage.
"Stem-cell science has become a state policy question," said Sean Tipton,
president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research.
Legislative quilt
Stem cells begin as blank slates capable of transforming into cells for any
tissue or organ in the body.
Since human embryonic stem cells first were isolated in 1998, researchers,
doctors and patient advocates have buzzed over their potential to provide
cures for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases and repairs for injured
spinal cords and hearts.
The research also has detractors. Critics say leftover embryos donated by
fertility clinic patients are destroyed during one primary technique used
for deriving stem cells.
In Missouri, critics also have drawn attention to another technique, somatic
cell nuclear transfer, a form of non-reproductive cloning. Many researchers
view the method as necessary for producing eventual embryonic stem-cell
therapies.
A growing roster of states, most notably California, New Jersey, Illinois
and Wisconsin, have offered support and, in some cases, financing for
embryonic stem-cell research. The National Conference of State Legislatures
has tallied a half-dozen states with a funding package in place or with
plans to pursue one.
On the other side, lawmakers in states such as Indiana, South Dakota and
Michigan are among states that have passed sanctions or other restrictions
on anyone who would pursue this science within their state borders.
"I have grave concern as someone who believes that life begins at
fertilization," said Patricia Miller, a Republican senator from Indianapolis
with more than two decades of service in the Indiana General Assembly. "I
think what they are doing raises enormous moral and ethical problems. I am
grateful that Indiana is not doing what California is doing."
Miller shepherded legislation into Indiana law in 2005 that prohibits
research on cloned embryos. Though the specifics of the various state laws
vary widely and not all were designed specifically to address stem-cell
research, researchers count Indiana among 18 states with legal restrictions
regarding research involving embryos.
Whether Missouri eventually follows the path of an Indiana or a California
after the Nov. 7 vote has substantial implications in the state.
Leaders of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City put a
$300 million expansion project on hold because of uncertainty over possible
research restrictions. Jim and Virginia Stowers, the benefactors of the
research institute, have been major supporters of the Missouri stem-cell
initiative.
The institute recently resumed expansion planning and aims to ramp up its
stem-cell work in the region. Both actions, however, are contingent on
Missouri voters approving the amendment.
"Jim and Virginia have unequivocally stated that future growth of the
institute in Kansas City depends on a cordial environment for stem-cell
research," William Neaves, president and chief executive officer of the
institute, said in an interview earlier this year.
Neaves also said that "we have difficulty rationalizing the establishment of
our programs in Missouri when we might wake up some morning to find that an
act of the legislature has rendered us felons."
Gold rush
Some states, most notably California, have explicitly encouraged stem-cell
research.
In 2004, California voters triggered a biotech gold rush with approval of a
$3 billion initiative for stem-cell science. The effort has been mired in
litigation and bureaucracy since it passed at the polls, but it appears to
be moving forward.
The state recently issued the group overseeing the California stem-cell
initiative a $150 million loan, making possible the first round of $100
million in grants. More cash is to come later, but even this initial amount
outdistances the $38 million the federal government is expected to direct to
human embryonic stem-cell research this year.
Reed, the stem-cell activist, is heartened that California's initiative is
moving ahead. But he worries that stem-cell advances may be stifled
elsewhere.
"This is not something that should be tied up in one state," said Reed, who
has been consumed by the pursuit of a medical breakthrough since his son,
Roman, was paralyzed in a 1994 college football game.
Reed speaks out at meetings, pleads his position in letters to newspapers
and closely follows the progress of campaigns such as the one in Missouri.
After feeling the pulsing of once-limp muscles of a research rat that partly
overcame spinal cord damage following a stem-cell treatment, Reed is
convinced that this research offers the greatest promise to help his now
31-year-old son.
"I believe I'll see my son walk again," Reed said.
Sean Morrison is a stem-cell researcher in Michigan who is watching the
ballot initiative in Missouri closely.
Soon after Scottish scientists announced in 1996 that they had cloned Dolly
the sheep, Michigan lawmakers worried about rogue researchers trying the
same thing with people imposed cloning restrictions.
Although human embryonic stem-cell research was not considered at the time,
the laws put in place nearly a decade ago have been an impediment, said
Morrison, director of the University of Michigan Center for Stem Cell
Biology.
"The Michigan Legislature frequently trumpets its support for the life
science sector," Morrison said. "On the other hand, they pass laws that move
the state in the opposite direction of states with thriving life sciences
industries."
Rivet, a lobbyist for the Right to Life organization in Michigan for the
past 18 years, says proponents are trying to persuade voters that stem-cell
cures are just out of humanity's grasp, blocked by "right-to-life,
embryo-worshipping laws standing in our way."
Rivet was involved in pushing for some of the restrictions in Michigan. Even
so, he contends that the University of Michigan, Michigan State and other
universities are research powerhouses and that the state has gained traction
in expanding its life sciences sector.
"We haven't seen it have a significant impact on our biotech industry or our
life sciences corridor," Rivet said. "It hasn't impacted a thing."
Rivet agrees that blocking embryonic stem-cell research was not the original
intention of the law. He said researchers can still do the work in Michigan
as long as they obtain batches of embryonic stem cells from elsewhere.
Michigan opponents of embryonic stem-cell research stand ready to resist a
pullback from the existing restrictions, though they are not necessarily
intending to push for more restrictive measures.
"It's pragmatic," Rivet said. "We have done what we can to prevent the
destruction of embryos here."
Tough choices
Lawmakers in various states initially got involved in the issue by trying to
put restrictions on cloning, said Alissa Johnson, an analyst with the
Conference of State Legislatures.
In recent years, however, there have been new measures intended to permit
some stem-cell research, Johnson said.
As this has occurred, potential economic development benefits such as those
promised by the Stowers Institute have been injected into the debate,
alongside the promotion of medical advances and concerns about moral and
ethical issues.
"Now that states are using state funds to promote stem-cell research
programs, it has put increasing attention on the economic development aspect
of the issue," Johnson said.
James Thomson, the Wisconsin scientist who was the first to isolate human
embryonic stem cells, is pursuing stem-cell-related start-ups in addition to
his university research. A small cluster of biotech companies also are
focusing on stem cells.
Other than that, though, embryonic stem-cell research activity is limited
largely to academic labs.
Johnson said, "It is really too early to say how all this will pay off in
the long run."
In the meantime, states are gauging their success by their ability to
attract top talent.
Gabriela Cezar was a graduate research assistant at the Roslin Institute of
Dolly the sheep fame. In recent years she had been at Pfizer Inc., working
on ways to use stem cells for developing new drugs.
When she wanted to advance her research by shifting to an academic
laboratory, Cezar considered offers from California and elsewhere, but
ultimately chose Wisconsin.
Pfizer has major operations in Michigan, and Cezar was familiar with the
rich biotech assets in that state. But because of the legal restrictions,
Cezar crossed Michigan off her list.
"How can you work in a place where you know your hands are going to be
 tied?" Cezar said.

To reach Jason Gertzen, call (816) 234-4899 or send e-mail to
[log in to unmask]




Don C. Reed, Chair, Californians for Cures, www.stemcellbattles.com. Email
Don

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