Stem Cell Research Hits Close To Home
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in ScienceI live in Kansas City, MO and work just over the state line in Overland Park, KS. So when I read this story about the Stowers Institute, a world class medical research facility located about six blocks from where I live, my interest was certainly peaked.
From the AP comes more on the controversial stem cell research:
Yet social conservatives in the Missouri legislature are effectively blocking some of the most ambitious research envisioned by the Stowers staff, saying that research with embryonic stem cells is so immoral it should be a crime.“I believe that a human embryo is worthy of legal protection,” said state Sen. Matt Bartle (R), who vows to press the fight. “Western medicine has been founded on a principle: First, do no harm.”
Repeated legislative efforts by Bartle and his colleagues forced the Stowers Institute to curtail recruiting and stop planning for a second 600,000-square-foot facility. At the same time, those efforts have spurred creation of an impromptu statewide alliance of business leaders, liberal science advocates and antiabortion Republicans who favor the research for reasons of health care and job growth.
So why is this important for Missouri? Well, first off this means jobs and economic growth in the Heartland. Their investment in Life Sciences were supported across the board by our legislature, and yet now these religious conservatives are trying to stop the important progress that Missouri and Kansas desperately need.
All Stowers researchers now focusing on adult stem cells “say they must be able to work on embryonic stem cells to move their research forward,” he said. “This is a local battle here, but I see it being played out in all places. People believe if they can win the battle in Missouri, they can win it anywhere.”Missouri is by any estimation a red state — it went strongly for Bush in November and elected as governor Matt Blunt, an antiabortion Republican. Kansas City and St. Louis, which sandwich a largely rural state, have been investing increasingly in life sciences, especially bioscience and plant science, which both cities see as a growth engine.
When the Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute got started about five years ago, it found annual research spending among eight institutions — six in Missouri and two in neighboring Kansas — to be $104 million. Last year, the figure was $243 million, said the group’s president, organic chemist Bill Duncan. There were 165 life sciences companies in the area at last count, with about 20,000 employees.
And then more from the “culture of life” crowd:
“We oppose embryonic stem cell research because it destroys the embryo,” said Fichter of Missouri Right to Life. “They’re trying to define human life by its geography. It doesn’t make any difference if it’s in a petri dish, implanted in the womb or in a nursery. A human life is a human life. Are we going to say a 4-year-old is more human than a 2-year-old?”
People, we are losing this race with the rest of the world. Countries all across the globe are pouring billions into this science and our progress as a nation is being hijacked by lawmakers who are trying to turn back the clock on reproductive rights by making an example of stem cells.
I know that they feel what they’re doing is just and the most moral thing to do, but we’re going to be left in the dust unless we get some leadership in Washington who will understand that embryonic stem cell research, and other programs involving non-embryonic stem cells, should be championed.
One last note from the story.
Supporters say that legislative impediments to stem cell research could lead to a decline in research and medical care, with money and talented staff flowing to states with a different approach. Stowers President William B. Neaves said the institute would be working with early stem cells if it were not for Bartle’s attempt to make the research a crime. He said two talented researchers are unwilling to move to Kansas City until the matter has been clarified.Rubin, chairman of an organization lobbying for the research, said: “There’s a huge economic stake. If a ban on research were to pass, it would send an anti-science signal that would cut off at the knees the efforts we’ve put in place to attract this industry.”
What a shame.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 10th, 2005 and is filed under Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 10th, 2005 at 8:46 am
I hate to say this, but i believe this is due to GWB. these people are and always have been promoting their beliefs before I even heard of Sr.’s son, but W.’s vague references to “intellegent design” and open opposition to abortion rights (like partial birth abortion) has given these people encouragement to push these issues agressively.
August 10th, 2005 at 9:03 am
I most definitely agree. For our country to move forward in this field, a “conservative” like Bush can not occupy the White House. Sure, these factions will still exist in state governments, but I feel they’ll be marginalized as time goes by. However, I fear it won’t be in time to save programs like Stowers’.
August 11th, 2005 at 7:56 am
Firstly I’ll start by saying that I believe in continuing embryonic stem cell research. But my question is why should the government pay for it? Really, it could apply to any and all research but particularly when a significant portion of the population (even if not a majority) feel it’s wrong. It’s not banned, you don’t go to jail if you engage in the research, you just don’t get government money. At that, it’s only federal money at stake anyway. Look at California — if you believe in federalism this is an opportunity, not a problem. If enough people want to support this research they’ll be a foundation started — look at the March of Dimes, or “Jerry’s Kids” among others. The federal government doesn’t (and shouldn’t) have to do everything.
August 11th, 2005 at 10:48 am
Embryonic stem cell research is so over-hyped its rediculous. If the government doesnt fund it, people think that all life science research is going to go back 100 years. Im a molecular biologist and it is obviuos to me that:
A)biolgical research is so advanced and diverse that using embryos represents a tiny fraction of possible achievements; Science in this country will not suffer if embryos are not funded, money will be diverted to other projects. So what if germany makes prosthetic limbs better than we do…>90% of all new medications were developed in the USA
B)People are confused what embryonic stem cell research can achieve. about 70 diseases so far have been treated with adult stem cell therapy (including paralysis), none have been treated with embryonic stem cells so far. Studying how an embryo becomes a zygote becomes a blastocyst ect(i.e. the real reason people want to use embryos) could provide useful basic information but I am not convinced that using human embryos is necessary to advance actual therapies.
C)there is a real ethical debate about the human status of the embryo which cannot simply be written off as religious zealotry. If we ignore these debates, the next step WILL be fetal farming for nacent body parts, which have more practical theraputic uses than embryos (or perhaps euthanasia of infants with cystic fibrosis or cleft palettes, as the do in the netherlands). I personally do not consider an embro to be a human being, but if the majority of a state does, they have every right to elect leadership who will promote their agenda and block embryonic research.
August 12th, 2005 at 8:10 am
I don’t believe that Matt Bartle even understands the science enough to make an informed decision on the validity or morality of it. Look at his record. He’s an Uber-Con after political gain. He doesn’t care about you, me or little peanut-sized bits of people.
It’s impossible for me to comprehend how our country can mandate a separation of church and state, but not a separation of church and science. I can’t guarantee it, but I would expect that when Matt Bartle, or someone close to him is suffering from Alzheimer’s, or MS, or whatever, he’ll have wished he took a different position on this issue, and so will his family.
I agree that there is an ethical issue about when life begins, etc. But I don’t remember being an embryo, and neither does anyone I’ve ever met. For me, life has more to do with consciousness or awareness, so I figure a bit of parasitic flesh that somebody already decided to remove from their body is fair game for science. The US government be damned, do it in France or somewhere, let them have the credit, and let the politicians whine about it.
August 12th, 2005 at 8:56 am
Fetal farming? That’s hardly the next step, I don’t care what your job is. What a huge leap!
Also, when polled the majority of Americans believe that we should go forward with this research. They elected Bush for other reasons, and yes…thereby gave him the authority to make these decisions. But be certain, Bush’s opinions DO NOT represent the majority opinion on this one.
August 12th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
Read this Slate article about Fetal farming, if you dont think this research is already on its way. It is loaded with links to actual lobbying groups pushing for the research:
http://www.slate.com/id/2123269/entry/2123270/
It is rather long, read each part if you have patience, but pay close attention to parts 4&5
I also mentioned that if the majority of a STATE did not support the research they can elect leadership or even vote on refferendum concerning the issue (that was what the Kansas City post was about). The debate first needs to be framed around the status of human life, not funding for research itself…research funding only follows when the democratic process has determined the perameters of the definition of life (that is why Roe v Wade was ruled incorrectly: there was no democratic process to determine life’s origins, it was arbitrarily determined as “viability” by an appointed judge)
February 11th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
I believe this is a good thing but is there not another way to get cells. I also believe people should reseach before forming an opinon on what they believe
July 11th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
More detail please…..
July 14th, 2006 at 9:58 am
If your concern if of moral Christian basis, then why not consult your Bible as to when a soul enters into a human.
Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
An embryo does not create its own blood until the 4th week of a successful implantation into a mother’s womb.
The Missouri Stem Cell initiative prohibits implantation. It prohibits using early stem cells from being utilized after 2 weeks.
Per the word of God, a Christian can vote to pass the Missouri Stem Cell Initiative with a clear conscience.
Also I find it interesting that this therapy hold the promise that someday a woman may cure herself of a variety of diseases through SCNT. In this process a woman could take her own skin cell and one of her eggs. Have the early stem cells extracted from the regenerative process to treat her own aliments, be it spinal injuries, brain disorders, Parkinson’s. Truly a marvel.
God Bless America.
August 6th, 2006 at 9:05 am
Good job.