AAMC Reporter: September 2008

Stem-Cell Research at Issue in November

Two ballot measures in Michigan and Colorado could have sweeping implications for how states conduct embryonic stem-cell research.

Approval of the Michigan Stem Cell Initiative would permit the creation of new stem-cell lines in the state, paving the way for more state-level stem-cell research. Meanwhile, the Colorado ballot measure could have just the opposite effect. If Coloradans approve what is known as Amendment 48, embryonic stem-cell research could be stymied, according to local researchers, because the amendment literally redefines the meaning of life, "to include any human being from the moment of fertilization."

This language, they say, could make it more difficult to utilize human embryos in the laboratory. The two states are seen as test cases in the ongoing battle over the use of stem cells. Stem-cell research proponents claim that embryonic stem-cell research could some day lead to new treatments or cures for a host of diseases, while opponents argue that destroying human embryos breaches ethical boundaries.

"This has been an important issue for many years," said Melvin A. Lester, M.D., founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research and Cures (MCSCRC). "But our legislature refused to change the law, so now we are taking it to the people."

Close to 600,000 people in Michigan have signed a petition supporting the initiative, which MCSCRC Executive Director Marcia Baum said was "a pretty strong indicator of the public's interest and enthusiasm."

Laws governing stem-cell research, and the treatment of the human embryos from which most stem cells originate, vary widely from state to state. Policies in California, Connecticut, New York, and Illinois encourage this type of research, while South Dakota law strictly forbids any kind of research involving embryos. The federal government restricts federally funded embryonic stem-cell research to cell lines derived before Aug. 9, 2001. Federal funding for creating stem-cell lines has been prohibited since the early 1990s.

Michigan's current statute permits research on stem-cell lines brought in from other states, but prohibits creating new stem-cell lines. For David Doyle, spokesperson for Michigan Citizens Against Unrestricted Science and Experimentation, the ballot initiative offers too much leeway to scientists.

"There isn't a ban now. The University of Michigan conducts human embryo stem-cell research," Doyle said. "This initiative is unregulated and unrestricted. It completely lets researchers do whatever they want, whenever they want."

Lester countered that the initiative will only permit embryonic stem-cell research "conducted in an ethical fashion and under control," and that cloning will remain illegal.

"Right now, our infertility clinics throw away most fertilized eggs that they don't use," Lester said. "These eggs are literally going in the garbage. They could be helping cure diseases for which there is no cure today." According to some academic researchers, Michigan's current laws are preventing the state from recruiting and retaining top-quality investigators.

"We are losing people to other states," said Jack Parent, M.D., associate neurology professor at the University of Michigan Health System. "Keeping good scientists and attracting good scientists to Michigan is critical."

In Colorado, voters face a different, but no less controversial, decision. Although the text of Amendment 48 is only 11 lines long, the language has the medical community concerned because it states that life begins at the moment of fertilization. The amendment was approved in May for the state ballot.

"This is a simplistic definition, with massive implications," said William D. Schlaff, M.D., professor of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center. "If this amendment is approved, you potentially couldn't do anything to an embryo because it's considered a person. Someone creating human stem-cell lines who is involved in the destruction of an embryo could be held in violation of the amendment."

Because the amendment's language does not specifically touch on embryonic stem-cell research or any other specific procedure, such as abortion, Schlaff said it would be up to the courts to determine whether violations had occurred. Because the state has no official guidelines for embryonic stem-cell research, it follows federal policy, according to state officials. Kristi Burton, who is leading the Amendment 48 initiative, said she is not thinking about the proposal's long-term implications.

"Our goal right now is to define every unborn child, at every stage of development, as a person," Burton said. "The amendment lays a foundation. Any other issue can be dealt with in the future because that is not what this amendment is about."

When asked about any potential consequences for embryonic stem-cell research, Burton said that the amendment "doesn't ban anything."

These are not comforting words for Schlaff, who said that the amendment could affect not only stem-cell research, but also abortion, organ transplantation, prenatal diagnoses, birth control, and many other medical procedures.

"It really depends on how it's enforced," he said. "The public should be aware of what issues may come up if this amendment is passed."

—By Elissa Fuchs