[ back ]
Decision on ballot wording reignites stem cell research
(by Tim Woodcock - February 26, 2008)
A judge ruled Feb. 20 that Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan was at fault in how she wrote a summary of a ballot initiative that could limit stem cell research in the state. Carnahan’s wording had the effect of distorting the intentions of the petitioners who are fighting to get the issue on the ballot, the judge ruled.
A group called Cures Without Cloning is seeking to ban research using embryonic stem cells, which it sees as a form of cloning; on the other side is the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, which was successful in fall 2006 in sponsoring a ballot initiative that affirmed the right of Missouri scientists to conduct this kind of research. Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures says it is in favor of therapeutic cloning but is against reproductive cloning.
Judge Patricia Joyce rewrote the ballot-initiative summary, which is what voters will see before them when they go to the polls, because the wording suggested by Carnahan, Joyce said, was likely to create bias against the measure.
The language approved by Carnahan drew attention to the punishments that scientists might face and it frames the issue as being about “Missouri patients’ access to stem cell research, therapies and cures.” Joyce’s summary does not make any explicit reference to punishments.
It asks, “Should the Missouri Constitution be amended to change the definition of cloning and ban some of the research as approved by voters in November 2006 by:
• prohibiting human cloning that is conducted by creating a human embryo at any stage from the one-cell stage forward;
• prohibiting expenditure of taxpayer dollars on research or experimentation on human cloning; and
• allowing stem cell research for therapies and cures that complies with these prohibitions and the prohibitions of [the relevant section of the state constitution].”
Donn Rubin of the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures said he is disappointed by the ruling. “We believe the Secretary of State had it right when she accurately and fairly summarized stem cell research opponents’ proposed initiative as repealing Missouri’s Stem Cell Amendment and criminalizing the activities of doctors and patients involved in federally approved research,” he said. Rubin said his organization is considering an appeal.
“Recent medical advances illustrate the great potential for eradicating the suffering of our fellow citizens who are affected by incurable diseases and injuries,” he said. “We still do not know from where the best treatments and cures will come. We must not padlock the toolbox until we know what tools will help cure cancer, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, sickle cell anemia and spinal cord injury.”
Carnahan’s summary was a “blatant attempt to mislead voters,” said Curt Mercadante, a spokesman for the Cures Without Cloning campaign. Joyce’s decision will allow the campaign to move on and start collecting the signatures needed to trigger a referendum, Mercadante said.
The original aim was for the question to go before voters on November 4 — the same date as the presidential election — and this is still technically possible, but it will be an uphill struggle to collect the 150,000 signatures required by a deadline of May 5.
Mercadante said he believes that Carnahan is in sympathy with the pro-stem cell campaigners and she knew that the ballot language was inaccurate. Writing a misleading ballot summary was part of a strategy to take the wind out of the campaign’s sails, and “the strategy worked to some degree and they have delayed us,” he said.
A referendum — whenever it happens — will allow voters rather then “politicians and special interests” to decide whether “human cloning” should be acceptable in Missouri, Mercadante said. The technique in question, somatic cell nuclear transfer, is the same one that was used to create Dolly the sheep, he noted.
Financial impact
In addition to a summary of how the law will be changed, every ballot initiative must be accompanied by an analysis of its potential financial impact on the state. In her judgment, Joyce ruled that the analysis compiled by State Auditor Susan Montee was accurate.
Montee stated that it typically costs $193,000 to arrange a vote statewide, and this one is likely to be about the same.
More significantly, the auditor invited cities and universities across the state to discuss how a ban on stem cell research could affect their bottom line, and both Kansas City and the city of St. Louis argued it could cost them tens of millions of dollars.
The St. Louis portion of the report was penned by Barb Geisman, the city’s executive director for development and a member of the mayor’s staff.
If the proposition passes, it would be extremely damaging to the St. Louis city’s economy because the city’s growth is tied to its image as “a cutting-edge center for medical research,” the report argued. St. Louis ranks 12th nationally in terms of the amount of National Institutes of Health grants received by institutions based in the city.
The report says there are 34,000 jobs in life sciences in the city — that category includes hospitals, medical equipment suppliers, as well those directly involved in research — and a 10 percent cut in this figure would result in a $10 million cut in the amount of money coming in to the city’s coffers through its 1 percent earnings tax.
The numbers in the report are difficult to assess because they are based on the total number of jobs in the life sciences field, and only a fraction of these would be directly impacted by a ban on stem-cell research.
The report attempts to “estimate the benefits of something that doesn’t exist,” Mercadante said, referring to the fact that stem cell research only takes place in a couple of labs in Missouri.
There is a “chilling effect” that occurs while the state’s position on biotech is in flux, the report argues. This translates into growing companies being less willing to invest in Kansas City and St. Louis, and research institutions having a more difficult time recruiting scientists to work for them. The Stowers Institute in Kansas City reports that this is already happening and has caused it to scale back a planned expansion.
The report claims that the proposition has the potential to cast a “black cloud” over the whole state.
However, the emotive language of the full-length report is not what voters will see on the ballot. Montee’s somewhat bland two-sentence summary puts it this way: “This proposal could have a significant negative fiscal impact on state and local governmental entities due its prohibition of certain research activities. However, total costs to state and local government entities are unknown.”
[ back ]
