WASHINGTON, Aug. 6 (UPI) -- Since the California legislation permitting embryonic stem cell research was enacted nearly a year ago, 11 other states have proposed similar laws and more are expected to follow suit.
This is a strong indication that, as the second anniversary of President George W. Bush's two-year-old decision to limit the controversial research approaches, individual states recognize an advantage in forwarding the research and are considering their own guidelines to deal with the issue.
Embryonic stem cells have the potential to turn into any cell in the body and thus hold the promise of treatments for Parkinson's, diabetes and other diseases. However, stem cells remain controversial because obtaining them involves the destruction of a human embryo -- a cluster of cells so small it can fit on the head of a pin. Pro-life groups object to this because they consider it the destruction of human life. Seeking a compromise on the issue, Bush decreed on Aug. 9, 2001, that federal funds could only be used for research on existing lines of stem cells.
State funds and private money still can be used to fund development of other stem cell lines, as well as other research in this area. That is what the California law, which was signed by Governor Gray Davis last September, has sought to exploit.
California, a state already loaded with about one-third of the biotech companies in the country, as well as prestigious research universities such as Stanford, has found creating an environment friendly to stem cell research attracted stem cell researchers and grants from private foundations. It also has encouraged biotech companies to become more aggressive in their research involving embryonic stem cells.
All of these factors have made supporting the research financially attractive to several other states, particularly those with a heavy concentration of biotech companies and biomedical universities. Massachusetts, where Harvard University and several companies pursuing stem cell research reside, looks likely to pass a law similar to California's and at least 10 other states have similar bills currently making their way through the legislative process, with more states expected to follow suit.
"We definitely expect to see more states address the issue," said Alissa Johnson, senior policy specialist with the genetic technologies project at the National Conference of State Legislatures. Of the 71 bills introduced in 29 state legislatures this year that would impact stem cell research, 18 -- affecting 11 states -- have mirrored California's law, Johnson told United Press International. In addition to Massachusetts, the states include Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Washington.
Not all of the states that decide to address stem cell research will lean in the direction of supporting it, however. Some have attempted to ban the technology.
"It's really hard to say exactly how this will all play out," Johnson said. Although 11 states have proposed legislation encouraging the research, just as many have proposed legislation banning it and a handful of states have put laws in place prohibiting the use of the cells.
South Dakota's law is the most restrictive, forbidding any type of embryonic stem cell research regardless of the source of the cells. Louisiana, Illinois and Michigan also have passed laws prohibiting research on embryos. Arkansas, Iowa and North Dakota prohibit the use of cloned embryos for research.
There have been more than a dozen bills pushing for embryonic stem cell research, but "the majority of legislation introduced in states seeks to restrict it and that's also important to note," Johnson said. Of the 71 stem cell bills, some 46 seek to prohibit the research.
Supporters of the research -- including scientists, the biotechnology industry and patient groups -- hope the positive impact the California law has had in attracting grants and researchers will bolster other states to pass similar laws and perhaps even put pressure on the U.S. Congress to tackle the issue.
If the Massachusetts legislation to permit embryonic stem cell research passes, "it would send a message to Washington," said Stephen Mulloney, director of policy and public affairs for the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council. He added he is "very confident" the bill will go through.
Ultimately, federal backing is going to be necessary to fund the research leading to cures and treatments for disease, said Michael Manganiello, president of the Council for the Advancement of Medical Research, a group comprised of university medical centers, scientific organizations and patient groups. But if more and more states pass supportive laws for the research it could "put pressure on (Congress) from the bottom up," he said.
Even if more states pass supportive laws for the research, the momentum might be offset by pressure from pro-life groups that want the technology banned.
"We would support a comprehensive ban nationally and in all 50 states on human cloning ... including embryonic stem cells," Carrie Gordon Earll, spokeswoman for Focus on the Family, a nonprofit group based in Colorado Springs, Colo., told UPI.
"It has the potential of being a patchwork (of different laws) all across the country and that's why I think passage of federal legislation is so important on this," Earll said. So far, Congress has not passed a ban on embryonic stem cell research and although the House has passed a bill banning any form of cloning, even for the purpose of creating the stem cells for research, the Senate is split on the issue and so far has not voted on it this year.
Although bills have been proposed in certain states to permit embryonic stem cell research, "states have not moved forward with (them) because people aren't comfortable ... with creating embryos for purposes of doing research on them," Earll said.
The California law has had a largely positive effect in the state, however, an aide to Democratic state senator Deborah Ortiz, who first proposed the law, told UPI. Several million dollars in private grants have "come forth for stem cell research in part because of the legislation," said the aide, who requested anonymity. For example, Stanford received an anonymous gift of $12 million in December and used it to open the Institute for Cancer/Stem Cell Biology and Medicine in an effort to utilize stem cell technology to develop novel treatments for cancer and other disorders.
"This is (the money) we know about," the aid said. "There's a lot we don't know about," including private financing through corporations and biotech companies.
The California law was slated to dole out $25 million in research grants, but the budget problems of the state prevented any of the money from being distributed. To raise funds that would not depend on the state budget, Ortiz has introduced new legislation to allow the state to raise money via bonds.
The millions of dollars offered at the state level probably will not be enough to drive stem cell research fully, but the states can provide a conducive environment to the research, which might be just as important, Michael Warner, vice president of bioethics for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, told UPI. The effect of a friendly environment for the research "should not be underestimated," Warner said, because it "provides incentives for researchers to go into this field ... and that's what's going to move the science forward."
Indeed, two Harvard stem cell researchers -- Evan Snyder and Mark Mercola -- made the decision to transfer to California based in large part on the state law. Snyder said the law "had a major impact" on his decision to leave Harvard, where he had spent his entire career. He joined the Burnham Institute in La Jolla in December as the director of its program on stem cells and regeneration.
The law "generated an enormous amount of enthusiasm among institutions out here" and the state became a magnet for foundations to start donating money as well as for investment from biotech and industry, Snyder said. Biotech companies have begun approaching the Burnham Institute with an interest in collaborating on stem cell research, Snyder said. In addition, private foundations such as the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and the Michael J. Fox Foundation "have started looking to us as a group that can help push the science ahead," he said.
Snyder added that similar laws in other states will likely encourage young scientists to go into this field, and that will in turn drive the science forward.
"A symbolic gesture on the part of the California legislature has turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy," he said.
