Thanks to all those who supported the truth, despite being outspent 10:1. Don’t be discouraged, for you did the right thing and God will bless you. NIV Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

Rich & Jill
Columbia, MO.

It’s kind of upsetting that the ones who are coming back with negative comments against what a man of God (Pastor Dan) has to say about the issue, but can’t come back with anything after the Washington University Scientists e-mail. Hopefully that e-mail cleared it up for all of you.

Thank you Pastor Dan!

For Life,
Meagan Rippee
President, Mizzou Students for Life
Missourians Against Human Cloning Campus Coordinator-Univ. of MO

Dear Friends,

I am deeply troubled by the lack of accurate information reaching the public about stem cell research and Amendment 2. I am a physician-scientist at Washington University School of Medicine, and part of my research focuses on stem cells, especially related to cancer. I approached this amendment with an open mind and have read it carefully many times. However, the more I read it, the more disturbed I am by the confusing and deceptive language of the amendment, the scientific double-talk, and its contradictory claims. Although I am a proponent of properly regulated stem cell research, and indeed my laboratory conducts stem cell research, I have become convinced that Amendment 2 would be a huge mistake for Missouri.

The basic arguments for Amendment 2 are essentially that (1) embryonic stem cell research has tremendous potential for curing a wide variety of diseases, and (2) any concerns that this research will be abused are unfounded because we can trust the medical and scientific community to regulate itself. Being knowledgeable of stem cell biology and related medical research, I am deeply skeptical that either of these arguments is true.

Did you know?

1. A major problem with embryonic stem cell therapy is the development of tumors and cancer. Click here for one of many examples.

2. A Harvard scientist recently discovered that adult stem cells could cure diabetes in animals, but her work was dismissed by the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation and some scientists because it was not ‘on message’ with their push for embryonic stem cell therapy. Her work has now been confirmed by two other prestigious universities! Click here.

3. Adult stem cells, which are readily available from blood, bone marrow, fat and other tissues, have shown the ability to cure diabetes, cardiovascular disease and many other disorders. Click here for one of many examples of recent research.

Here is another example.

Why are we not hearing about the dangers of embryonic stem cells, and the successes of adult stem cells, which do not endanger women?

***************************************************************

Below, I attempt to clarify some of the common arguments that are being made in favor of Amendment 2.

Argument # 1: Amendment 2 prohibits human cloning. Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), which the Amendment protects, is not human cloning.

Clarification: When scientists talk about cloning, SCNT is exactly what they are talking about. Amendment 2 claims to prohibit cloning but deceptively redefines cloning to apply only to the implantation of the cloned embryo into a uterus. Here is a medical definition of cloning: “The transplantation of a nucleus from a somatic cell into an ovum, which then develops into an embryo.” No mention about uterine implantation. To say that a cloned embryo is not human unless it is placed into a woman’s uterus, is like saying that a nuclear bomb is not a weapon unless it is dropped on people. The potential for harm and abuse is great, even if one does not intend to act on this potential. Read the amendment carefully! The Amendment actually encourages and protects human cloning, which it claims to prohibit.

Argument #2: Embryonic stem cell research has the potential for curing many more diseases than adult stem cells.

Clarification: I can find no scientific evidence for this claim. Many people have been led to believe that embryonic stem cell research is new, and this is the reason we have not yet seen their incredible curative potential. The truth is that embryonic stem cells have been researched since the early 1960’s. What is really new is the tremendous breakthrough in our understanding of adult stem cells, which are readily available from blood, bone marrow, fat, and other sources, and do not endanger women. We have only recently become aware of the amazing ability of adult stem cells to change into many different cell types, such as bone marrow stem cells turning into nerve cells that could potentially treat a wide range of neurologic diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease. Click
” REL=”nofollow”>here for just one of hundreds of examples.

If adult stem cells are likely to be just as good, if not better, than embryonic stem cells, why expose women to risky egg extraction and create a huge demand for eggs that will surely end up in ethical compromises and exploitation of women?

Argument #3: SCNT will not endanger women. All egg donations are voluntary.

Clarification: To be honest, this is my greatest concern. Despite loud cries to the contrary, the widespread use of SCNT for medical research and treatment will unquestionably jeopardize the health of women, particularly poor disadvantaged women and young, college-age women with limited financial resources who will be tempted to allow themselves to be given large doses of ovulating hormones and undergo surgical procedures to extract eggs in exchange for monetary awards. We are not talking about a few hundred cloned embryos, but rather, millions and millions will be needed for this research. And the need for more eggs will never end for the huge biotech industrial complex that would be spawned by this amendment. Even if we manage to control the exploitation of women in Missouri , profiteers will undoubtedly go to third world countries to find willing subjects. I just learned of a woman in another state who was in an abusive relationship and had limited financial means, so she took ovulating hormones and offered her eggs in exchange for money. She did this repeatedly despite severe pain associated with the egg extractions. Technically, her egg donations could be described as ‘voluntarily,’ but I find this degradation of women to be appalling and unacceptable. In contrast, investing our resources in adult stem cells will ultimately result in similar or greater cures than embryonic stem cells without creating a biotech industrial complex that pursues women’s eggs. If you think I am exaggerating, check out this recent article from the leading scientific journal Nature warning of dangers to women from egg extractions.

Argument #4. How could this amendment be a bad idea when leading scientists and doctors support it?

Clarification: The media blitz only shows the scientists and doctors in favor of Amendment 2, but there are many who oppose it. Why are you not hearing about the scientists and doctors who oppose Amendment 2 and who are concerned about embryonic stem cell research and human cloning? Good question if you believe in democracy and an informed electorate. The amendment proponents linked up with a wealthy couple in Kansas City who donated almost all of the ~$28 million being used to saturate the media with p
ro-amendment information. Meanwhile, the many doctors and scientists against this amendment do not have the big business biotech money to mount a similar ad campaign, and most do not speak out in fear of retribution by their institutions. You will have to decide for yourself whether you think this is the way democracy is supposed to work.

Argument #5. The only people against embryonic stem cell research are conservatives and religious extremists.

Clarification: This is the most incendiary, contemptible and most easily debunked misstatement by the amendment supporters. This attempt to pit amendment proponents and opponents against each other on the basis of religious belief and political affiliation is appalling. For example, look at the following website to see that feminists and others who would hardly consider themselves religious conservatives are against this type of legislation.

***************************************************************
Bottom Line

The bottom line is that Amendment 2: (1) would surrender our right as Missouri citizens to regulate stem cell research in our own state, (2) would allow biotech special interests to do human cloning experiments in Missouri without proper democratic oversight, (3) is not needed to ensure the best available healthcare in Missouri, (4) is not needed to ensure world-class research in Missouri, (5) would create a biotech industrial complex with an insatiable and unceasing demand for women’s eggs, which would jeopardize the health of disadvantaged and young women who would be enticed into submitting themselves to dangerous hormonal treatments and surgical egg extractions for monetary awards, and (6) creates a false hope of magical embryonic stem cell cures and deflects attention and resources away from tremendously exciting treatments and cures that are emerging now with adult stem cells, which are readily available and do not endanger women.

Final Thoughts

My practice focuses on patients with cancer, and I am profoundly saddened when one of them dies of their disease. I am in the trenches every day trying to save patients and find new cures, and I understand what is at stake. But I am convinced that this amendment is not the right direction for our state. There are much more effective ways we can spend our money and time without endangering women, forfeiting our right to regulate research in Missouri , and creating an ethically ambiguous world where body parts are scavenged from cloned embryos.

We all have to make our own decisions, and democracy only works well if voters are fully informed. Whatever opinion you develop on this issue, make sure it is based on facts!

Please note that my comments are made as a private citizen on the basis of my training and expertise as a medical doctor and research scientist in the field of oncology. I do not, nor do I mean to imply, that I represent the views of Washington University , Barnes-Jewish Hospital , or any other organization with which I am affiliated.

Thanks for your attention.

J. William Harbour , MD
Distinguished Professor
Washington University School of Medicine