Selling cells
Proposal 2 could allow for more stem cell research throughout the state
Visiting assistant professor Dr. Mei-hui Tai works Friday afternoon at the MSU stem cell research lab in the Food Safety and Toxicology Building under a biohazard hood used to prevent dirty air from contaminating sample cells.
Tweet
Voters will have the chance to resolve an ethical issue that has been debated in the Michigan Legislature for years when they cast their ballots this November. Proposal 2 seeks to amend the state’s constitution to loosen restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research in Michigan.
Embryonic research is allowed in Michigan, but researchers must get their cells from outside the state. Taking them from sources within the state is a felony.
The proposal would allow Michigan families to donate leftover embryos from in vitro fertilization to stem cell research.
“There is not a person in this state that does not know someone that could potentially benefit from stem cell research,” said Chris DeWitt, spokesman for Cure Michigan, the group behind the proposal. “This is a very fundamental issue for many people that want to see Michigan be able to participate in finding these cures.”
Although there are still many mysteries surrounding stem cell research, scientists believe it could lead to cures for diseases such as diabetes and cancer and repair tissue damage in the spinal cord and heart.
But its opponents say using embryonic stem cells to find those cures is like trading one human life for another.
“A young human embryo is still a human,” said David Prentice, a biochemist representing the Family Research Council, which opposes the proposal. “We don’t believe they should be destructed for any reason, including research.”
The debate over stem cell research hits close to home for MSU student Julie Lahaie. Lahaie’s mother and uncle both have multiple sclerosis, a nervous system disease that damages nerve cells and leads to problems with muscle coordination, strength, vision, thinking and memory.
“My uncle’s multiple sclerosis is very far progressed, and it’s just sad to see that my mom could end up that way … when there are options to research a cure for it,” Lahaie said.
She said stem cell research offers promising prospects to treat or cure multiple sclerosis. For her, the decision to support Proposal 2 is clear.
“It would give us a little bit of hope that, maybe, we won’t have to watch our loved ones suffer and die,” she said.
“Even if we do, there will come a time when others don’t have to.”
Michigan’s laws regarding stem cell research are among the most restrictive in the nation.
More than 40 other states allow researchers to harvest embryonic stem cells, DeWitt said.
Chia-Cheng Chang, a stem cell researcher at MSU who uses adult human and animal stem cells, said the proposal would allow Michigan to compete with other states for funding and scientists.
“It’s not easy to get support,” he said. “(If the proposal passes) there will be more money, more people working in this area.”
Leonard Fleck, a professor in MSU’s Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences, said most citizens support embryonic research, but attempts to pass laws allowing it have been stymied in the Legislature. The constitutional amendment was created to get around that problem, he said.
“The proponents of this ballot initiative are, in effect, saying ‘Well, we can’t through the normal legislative process … we have to find another political avenue,’” he said.
But state Sen. Tom George, R-Kalamazoo, who is chairman of the Health Policy Committee, said the issue should stay in the Legislature instead of proposing a constitutional amendment.
“If they’re frustrated with the legislative process, well, welcome to the party,” he said. “It would serve the people better to have this in statute that is malleable, rather than in the constitution, which is fixed.”
George, who spoke on behalf of Michigan Citizens Against Unrestricted Science and Experimentation, said a constitutional amendment would keep lawmakers from regulating the stem cell industry if new issues arise in the future.
But DeWitt said it does leave room for oversight. Accusations that it doesn’t are attempts to mislead the public, he said.
“There is a role for the state as far as regulating this type of research,” he said.
Until legislation to allow embryonic research is passed, Michigan’s universities can’t compete with universities in states with looser regulations and rules, Fleck said.
“If you ask embryonic stem cell researchers, it’s about human medicine and human suffering, human disease you would hope to find a cure of,” he said.
“If you have a law that says you can’t do that … with embryonic stem cells, there would be some very creative researchers who are just not going to come here.”
Commentary
Add your $0.02, go to the comment form or follow the comment feed
Matt
(10/08/08 9:34am)Report
No matter how you justify it, you are still taking a human life and destroying it for testing. These “leftover” embryos are actually alive, but those who created them don’t respect the dignity of life. When did we get to the point where killing life in the hopes of potentially helping others in the future was the correct ethical choice?
Minerva
(10/08/08 9:51am)Report
Prop 2 doesn’t care about people.
‘[P]atient safety’ is specifically suspended if it might ‘discourage’ ‘stem cell research’.
Patient Safety. Public Safety. Environmental Laws – all take back seat to researchers toys and theoretical ‘cures’. Businesses can do whatever they want – so long as they can just mumble, ‘stem cells…”
Read the proposed amendment on page 8 of the Citizen’s Research Council of Michgan’s report http://crcmich.org/PUBLICAT/2000s/2008/rpt353.pdf Then search clinical trials and watch videos on diseases like diabetes & MS in remission and organ & limb regeneration at: http://www.CureMI.com Discover what proponets are hiding.
Big Biz and Snake Oil Salesmen LOVE Prop 2
Vote NO.
Brooke
(10/08/08 10:09am)Report
Using the embryos from fertility clinics will not be trading one life for another. The average fertility clinic has somewhere around 40,000 unused embryos, most of which are eventually thrown away. Which is worse…throwing away an embryo that could potentially save lives, or advancing research so that, one day, there would be cures for disease like MS, Crohn’s, cancer, etc. I am sure that most Michiganders would agree with me and vote yes on Prop 2 to help advance science and potentially save the lives of our loved ones.
jen
(10/08/08 10:35am)Report
brooke’s got it right… throw them away or use them to help others. it is such a waste!
Joe
(10/08/08 11:53am)Report
Brooke, I couldn’t agree more with your post. If the embryo isn’t going to be used anyway, isn’t that destroying human life? So, either way, according to the first two posters, we are destroying life. So, why not take these otherwise unused embryos and put them towards helping finding cures to major illnesses.
It seems like we could gain so much by using them. If we can find cures for some of our major illnesses, these will help save more lives than we can imagine.
Matt
(10/08/08 12:10pm)Report
Life isn’t a commodity that should be sold or thought of as garbage! This proposal would open the floodgates to further destruction of human life.
Could you justify killing a full-grown, but terminally-ill human if there were some scientific cause that could be realized? If no, then why is it any different for a human embryo?
Pete
(10/08/08 12:19pm)Report
What if I could justify killing a full-grown, but terminally-ill human if there were some scientific cause that could be realized? Why not?
Matt
(10/08/08 12:55pm)Report
I fear for society if a substantial number of people could honestly say they approve of Pete’s justification. If you don’t agree with with Pete that this could be justified, than please think seriously about what the difference is before you cast your vote. Is it ok to think of life as a commodity to be used by the rest of society?
Bystander.
(10/08/08 1:02pm)Report
Matt, that’s a bit overboard don’t you think? The discussion has made it clear that the embryo’s would be wasted and unused so why not utilize them for critical research purposes. Unless you’re willing to save each embryo, buy them Christmas sweaters to wear, and find a way to raise them, then I guess every single day we’re continuing to destruct human life. I’d like to think not, I’d like to think they’re life savers that have a great importance. Just wait until the time where stem cell research might come in handy for you one day.
beau
(10/08/08 1:27pm)Report
Matt: Life is a commodity whether you want to admit that or not is up to you. Life is used by other members of society all the time, just ask a Marine or soldier.
Brad
(10/08/08 3:37pm)Report
Voting yes on Proposal 2 is the most pro-life stance you can take here. If you vote no on 2 you are condemning those extra stem cells to be thrown away.
By passing Proposal 2, we will be giving our researchers a chance at developing cures and treatments for terrible illnesses. This will the save lives of people in the future and make the lives of people in the present better.
Pro-life, pro-Michigan, vote yes on 2.
SoCal Spartan
(10/08/08 4:14pm)Report
Yeah, Embryos become garbage and serve no purpose. Meanwhile these lives can be used to save lives! So God’s gifts can be thrown away, or used to benefit the rest of God’s children? Which sounds better? To me, I’d rather help people then throw them away, any day!
Debbie
(10/08/08 5:28pm)Report
The title of this article is all wrong. The embryos specifically cannot be bought or sold but only obtained through donation ONLY. “No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human embryos for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures.” is straight from the wording of the ballot proposal. Get it right and stop misleading people that there will be a sudden embryonic marketplace.
Second of all, to those who disagree with it, I hope that you plan on donating your womb or the wombs of your wife to save these poor embryos. What’s that? Can’t carry a baby cause you are a dude? Too bad and shut the hell up.
Pulled Cotton
(10/08/08 5:31pm)Report
Matt pull that cotton out of your ears! Let me spell it out for you:
The embryos proposal 2 would give to researchers are ones that would be otherwise discarded.
I know how hard it is for some of you to understand how the world works, but those embryos are destined to become waste. Yes, waste. Did you honestly believe fertility treatment centers use all the embryos they produce? Please! Its the nature of the beast. They produce excess embryos to help give couples seeing treatment the best possible chance of conceiving.
SoCal Spartan
(10/08/08 6:39pm)Report
I’m amazed by the conservative nature of the State News, I mean my God…I’d expect this from the University of Michigan…it’s amazing due to U of M being more liberal then Michigan State University. That seems BACKWARDS! Still, none the less, I wish the State News was unbiased journalism. You’d at least expect that from a collegiate newspaper.
Sad stuff it is, for sure!
Chris
(10/08/08 7:05pm)Report
Matt, escaping imposed religious beliefs is a large reason the United States exists today. I suggest that you DO NOT try to impose your personal religious beliefs on others. It would ultimately be up to each individual to choose to donate or not, based on their individual beliefs, as it should be if we truly are a free society.
John
(10/08/08 8:44pm)Report
Agreed. I really wish people wouldn’t impose religious beliefs on others when they cast their votes, but people don’t really seem to care.
Yes, embryos are alive and we are technically killing them. And while we should use them instead of throwing them away, lets look at another point. Setting religion aside, how is a human life more valuable than any other form of life? When you kill plants, other animals and even bacteria you are also killing life. How is human life more important than other forms? I would do the same thing to a pig embryo, why not a human embryo? What the heck is the “dignity of life” supposed to mean as referenced to by the first poster? Lets be logical.
There are deep questions here, people need to stop letting religion define their beliefs and start thinking objectively for themselves. And if you don’t know where you stand, that’s ok. I’m pro-choice because while I don’t know how I feel about the topic, but I’m not going to let my indecision get in the way of people who do know how they feel.
And for God’s sake (pun intended), DON’T let your religious beliefs decide your vote.
Chris
(10/08/08 10:03pm)Report
Debbie, the article title is not all wrong. The proposal states in part “ANY research permitted under federal law on human embryos may be conducted in this state.” The language you quoted at 5:28 pm prohibits the sale of embryos for “STEM CELL research.” Thus the amendment guarantees the right to buy and sell embryos for NON stem cell research. Why haven’t we been expressly told this by the media?
Chris
(10/08/08 10:18pm)Report
I don’t accept the argument that the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway. First, the embryos are dying because of the neglect of their parents. If the amendment passes, they will be being killed with the full approval of the state. There’s a tremendous difference there. Indeed, the amendment amends the “Rights” chapter of the constitution and puts destructive embryonic research alongside freedom of speech and freedom of religion as a cherished right.
Some couples have adopted these embryos, had them implanted in the woman’s womb, and given birth to the child. Further, as I recall, these embryos are at about the 5 day stage of development. The stem cell researchers will effectively adopt them, nurture them in growth for up to another 10 days, and THEN kill them. The argument being offered for destruction of these embryos could be extended to the very people whom this research is supposed to help. They are not going to live long anyway and it would be beneficial to society to kill them. As a matter of fact, if we sacrifice an adult, we can get enough organs and tissues to treat or cure 40 people, according to organ transplant websites. That’s real cures for real people now. It may be many years before embryonic stem cell research yields a single cure or treatment. NOBODY has yet been successfully cured or treated of a single condition by embryonic stem cells. Over 70 conditions have been cured or treated by adult stem cells. Also, there may be an alternative, which is to limit the creation of these embryos in the first place unless parents intend to implant them. We should consider having them freeze their sperm and eggs and create embryos as needed.Chris
(10/08/08 10:28pm)Report
Ethical issues aside, from a public policy perspective, this amendment is a bad idea. No other state, and probably no other jurisdiction anywhere in the world creates a constitutional right to perform research on human embryos free of any oversight or regulation by that jurisdiction. Only Missouri and California consititionally authorize embryonic research and those proposals are limited to STEM CELL research and, at least in Missouri’s case, cloning. The Michigan amendment doesn’t affect cloning one way or the other but guarantees the right to conduct any other type of embryonic research, stem cells or not. For non stem cell research, they can grow the embryo to any stage of embryonic development, experiment on it, and kill it or let it live. Think of the financial debacle because of lack of government regulation and unforeseen new types of financial instruments. Why would we tie our hands this way with respect to a fast developing field of science?
Chris
(10/08/08 10:48pm)Report
You can read the language of the proposal itself at www.micause.org
Pete
(10/09/08 9:38am)Report
How is the argument that since “nothing has been accomplished yet, then we shouldn’t even try” even seriously considered?!? What kind of scientific progress happens immediately? That is the very reason for scientific research – to progress and find something new. We can’t send a man to Jupiter – should we stop space exploration and research altogether? Why bother, we can’t get to Jupiter!
It seems extremely selfish to prohibit scientific research on the grounds of it not having results yet. That’s why we want to approve future research! Just because you can’t benefit immediately today, why should you dictate research into something that may help future generations??
This would not even be an issue if the legislators would get their heads out of their asses and have passed laws to aid research opportunities. Instead, the citizens are having to take matters into their own hands and amend the constitution. Fine – repeal the amendment and pass a law down the road. But this will bring opportunities to universities and companies in Michigan, creating inflow of cash and jobs – something the state really needs.
Pete
(10/09/08 9:42am)Report
Oh, and stop pointing to micause’s website as a source for the proposal language and other information. It’s disingenuous to provide an obvious biased source as a source for people to try and learn more. Go to michigan.gov/vote; there is a link there to a copy of the actual ballot, along with the language for both proposals as they will appear on the ballot.
Trying to find legitimate information about stem cell research on micause’s website is like trying to find unbiased information about the Red Sox on the Yankee’s homepage!
Reason
(10/09/08 4:27pm)Report
Why is an unfeeling, unaware embryo somehow considered to be a human life? We’re talking about cells here, not people. I’d like to see you stand in front of someone suffering from Parkinson’s and tell them that you won’t help them, because it involves using cells that are less alive that what you could scrape off the bottom of a lily pad.
Lauren
(10/17/08 2:37pm)Report
Well said, Reason! Vote YES on Proposal 2!!
http://www.curemichigan.com