States Now the Stem Cell Wars Battleground

[rayilynlee <rayilynlee@xxxxxxx>]

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
rbrown@xxxxxxxxx

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn