Lectures offer both sides of the debate on stem cells
Published Oct. 27, 2006
In Missouri, calling the debate between opponents and supporters of Amendment 2, which would legally protect embryonic stem cell research, a "hot-button" issue would serve as a useless understatement.
Opinion polls on the issue are as deadlocked as the fierce Senate race between Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo., who opposes the measure, and Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill, who ardently supports it. Celebrities including musician and Missouri-native Sheryl Crow, St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Jeff Suppan and actor Michael J. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, have even publicly weighed in with their views on the debate.
At MU, various student organizations held programs this week to educate the public about the issue.
Jena Swingle, College of Arts and Science student government president, said educating the people of Missouri is conducive to informed decisions on Nov. 7.
The department sponsored a symposium on stem cell research Wednesday that featured MU biology professor Mark Kirk, philosophy professor Bill Bondeson and former Democratic state Rep. Vicky Riback Wilson. Each featured speaker gave lectures and fielded questions on the various scientific, ethical and legal implications of Amendment 2.
"We felt this was an issue that everyone is talking about, but no one really knows about," Swingle said. "We wanted to provide enough education for people to make their own decision when they vote this November."
If passed, Amendment 2 would protect the right of scientific researchers to conduct embryonic stem cell research, which uses human embryos five-to-seven-days old, called blastocysts, to harvest stem cells. Under the amendment, no law can be generated in the state that would hinder stem cell research, but researchers will continue to be governed by "laws concerning scientific and medical practices and patient safety and privacy," the measure states.
Kirk, who is involved in a stem cell research program, said in his lecture that stem cells could potentially provide beneficial therapy for severe aliments including strokes, diabetes and spinal cord damage. He also said, though, that it could be decades before significant strides are made in medicine as a result of the research.
"There's a lot of work before this can be applied to humans," Kirk said.
The amendment also states human reproductive cloning would be banned in Missouri, which some opponents, like Keith Roller, call unscrupulous.
Roller, guest lecturer to Missouri Students For Life's program on Tuesday, called the amendment's definitions of cloning "a bald-faced lie."
Roller, who serves as the director of the anesthesiology department of the Cedar Oaks Surgery Center in Warrensburg, Mo., said in order to produce the stem cells needed for research, an egg must first be fertilized with genetic material from patients who need stem cell therapy — technically "cloning" the owner of the genetic material used.
"Don't let them lie to you, and tell you this isn't about cloning," Roller said.
In his lecture, Kirk explained the difference between the cloning used in stem cell research and the cloning banned in Amendment 2 is that the embryos used for research are not used to create new human beings, which is referred to as human reproductive cloning.
Bondeson said the legal restrictions on stem cell research in place today could force the research overseas or possibly into the private sector, where public scrutiny and scientific peer review might be minimized. He said the ethical and moral arguments surrounding the research are too remarkable to go unnoticed.
"People who are against stem cell research may make the claim that to destroy a blastocyst is morally equivalent to destroying a fully formed human being like you and me," Bondeson said.
Senior Ben Verkamp, who attended the Missouri Students For Life lecture on Tuesday, said he felt he should hear both sides of the argument.
"I am riding the fence," Verkamp said. "I used to be die-hard for stem cell research. You can't underestimate the moral aspect of it and, more important, you can't underestimate the financial side of it. But at the same time, who are you going to believe?"
According to an Oct. 24 opinion poll by Survey USA, 45 percent of Missourians said they would vote for Amendment 2, 36 percent said they would vote against it and 18 percent were undecided.