Politics and funding of stem cell research

1. Politics and funding of stem cell research John D. Lantos M.D. John B. Francis Chair in Bioethics Center for Practical Bioethics, Kansas City Professor of Pediatrics The University of Chicago

2. Missouri: a case study of the policy debate about stem cells • In 2004, Missouri tried to pass law banning research with human embryonic stem cells. • Catholic conference, conservative Protestants, and anti-abortion activists, vs. • business leaders, scientists, and pro-research Republicans • Chamber of Commerce • Stowers Institute, Wash U, U of Mo. • Economic Development Corporation

3. The political scene - 2005 • Republican governor – Matt Blunt • Republican control of House and Senate • Rep. U.S. senators – Kit Bond, Jim Talent • Conservative bishops in St. Louis and Kansas City • Raymond Burke (famous for saying that John Kerry should not receive communion) • Robert Finn – member of Opus Dei

4. Couldn’t pass – became a “wedge” issue • Sponsors of a bill to ban cloning split over • Criminal vs. civil penalties • Funding for adult stem cell research • 3 year moratorium vs. permanent ban • Failed to pass, even though 128/162 member of the House, and 28/34 state senators oppose abortion. • Led to “counterrevolution.”

5. Backlash: proposed amendment to the State Constitution • Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative • “Any stem cell research permitted under federal law may be conducted in Missouri.” • “Oversight and approval authority for such research by an embryonic stem cell research oversight committee whose membership includes representatives of the public and medical and scientific experts.”

6. Missouri coalition for life-saving cures • Almost every disease-related advocacy organization. (Cancer, diabetes, etc…) • 600 physicians, 1100 nurses, 400 clergy • Wash U, Mo. Med Assoc, U of Mo • AFL-CIO, Chamber of Commerce, Rabbinical Association of KC, many Protestant clergy, some brave Catholics • > 60,000 individuals, 1000 organizations

7. Framing the debate • “Missouri voters are being asked whether an issue before them would kill cloned human embryos or cure the world of disease.” • Matt Franck, Jefferson City Post Dispatch, 10/7/06

8. Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures • “What we protect is a very promising form of medical research that involves cells in a lab dish, not something that involves pregnancy,” • Donn Rubin, chairman of the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures,

9. Missouri Right to Life • “We think it’s a false distinction to say that a clone exists only based on geography. Look, we support ethical stem cell research, and we think cloning was misrepresented to voters. We know that a majority of Missourians oppose cloning.” • Pam Fichter, President of Missouri Right to Life. “

10. Missourians Against Human Cloning • Embryonic stem cell science exploits women • Adult stem cell research has produced 72 cures and treatments. • The danger of therapeutic cloning lies in the intentional creation of a subclass of human beings, made up of those still in their embryonic or fetal stages, who can be freely exploited.

11. Cures Without cloning • It is a biological fact that a unique, living, self-directing, developing human being exists from the moment of fertilization or cloning. • SCNT (Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer) is cloning. • Embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) requires the killing of a human being. • To date, ESCR has provided no cures or effective treatments for humans.

12. Semantics or morality • “No human being who has ever walked this earth has ever not come from a mother.” • John Danforth, former Senator, abortion opponent, who favors the amendment

13. Missouri Catholic Conference • “In cloning for research, human embryos are artificially created only to be destroyed in scientific and medical experiments. These cloned human beings are deliberately killed, at the earliest stage of their life for the sake of someone else’s idea of “scientific progress” or “therapy.”

14. Coalition for Lifesaving Cures • “Somatic cell nuclear transfer makes stem cells, not babies.” • William Neaves, President and CEO, Stowers Institute for Medical Research

15. Election year politics - 2006 • Unpopular President • Close Senate race – Claire McCaskill (d), proponent of legalized stem cell research, challenged incumbent Jim Tenant (r), an opponent of stem cell research. • McCaskill won 51-49. Amendment legalizing stem cell research won, 51-49. • Missouri key state in 2008 election.

16. Politics, 2008 • Conservative Republican governor announced that he would not seek a second term. • “Cures without cloning” seeking another referendum -- with revised language. They claim that the people of Missouri were deceived into approving the amendment.

17. Bioethics defense fund • Challenged ballot language as deceptive: • Section 2 of amendment says it “bans cloning.” Section 6 gives biotech firms the constitutional right to conduct “somatic cell nuclear transfer.” the scientific definition for cloning; • Section 2 says human eggs may not be bought or sold. Section 6(17) “gives biotech firms the right to pay our cash-strapped daughters thousands of dollars to harvest their eggs.”

18. Follow the money • Stowers Research Institute threatened to leave Missouri if amendment did not pass. • They spent $30M lobbying for passage of amendment. • Still worried. • Until the environment for embryonic stem cell research in Missouri stabilizes, the Stowers Institute will "suspend plans to expand or construct any new research laboratories in Missouri."

19. Red State/Blue State • California – 2004 - $3B bonding initiative to provide $300M annually for 10 years. • New Jersey – 2004-5; $380M for stem cell research center • Massachusetts – legalizes “therapeutic cloning,” no funding

20. Red State/Blue State • Connecticut - $100M for embryonic stem cell research over 10 years. • Illinois - $10M to create the Illinois Regenerative Medicine Institute

21. Red State/Blue State • 2006 Maryland $15M Stem Cell Research Fund • 2007 – NY, Empire State Stem Cell Trust. $50M/yr x 10 years • Ohio – Biomedical Research and Commercialization Program

22. So what? • Stem cell policy will be decided by • Religious groups • Government, foundation, and venture capital funders • Ultimately, democratic deliberation and voters • Different countries and states will have different rules. • Everywhere, research will be overseen by publically accountable agencies

23. Students should understand… • Not just the ethics but also the politics, religion, and ethics • How scientists’ careers can be nurtured or stunted by public policy • Who will pay for their work. • The need for public education • Ultimately, who will profit!