St. Louis
MICHAEL J. FOX was right–at least partially. “What you do in Missouri,” Fox said in his now famous TV ad, “matters to millions of Americans–Americans like me.” He never mentioned Amend ment 2. He never mentioned the word “cloning.” He merely endorsed Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill, the state auditor, and spoke against GOP incumbent Jim Talent. But the subtext was clear: Vote for McCaskill–and while you’re at it, vote “yes” on Amendment 2.
“As you might know, I care deeply about stem cell research,” said Fox, a longtime and visibly suffering Parkinson’s patient, in a spot that first aired during the World Series. “In Missouri you can elect Claire McCaskill, who shares my hope for cures. Unfortunately, Senator Jim Talent opposes expanding stem cell research. Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope.”
This was misleading. Talent once cosponsored a Senate bill to ban human cloning, but then withdrew his name last February, fearing it might imperil a new form of research called “altered nuclear transfer,” which can yield embryonic stem cells without destroying human embryos. Talent supports that research–indeed, he supports any form of stem cell research that leaves embryos intact and doesn’t entail cloning. While Talent opposes Amendment 2, the failure of that amendment would not “criminalize” anything.
But Fox was correct to imply that the fate of Amendment 2 will reverberate far beyond Missouri. What is Amendment 2? Depends on whom you ask. Supporters insist it would write a ban on human cloning into the Missouri constitution and codify an ethical framework for stem cell research. Opponents claim it would actually legalize cloning despite appearing to outlaw it. Who’s right?
Donn Rubin, chairman of the amendment-backing Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, puts it bluntly: “There really is no shame among the opponents.” Last week, in a testy radio debate on Missouri’s KWMU, Rubin stressed that Amendment 2 would prevent the creation of “Dolly the human” and ensure that any form of “somatic cell nuclear transfer” (SCNT) allowed under federal law would also be permissible in Missouri. The urgency of the amendment, he added, stemmed from recent efforts in the state legislature to prohibit SCNT.
According to Rubin, the “reprehensible” and “drastic” bills being mulled in Jefferson City would penalize “doctors and patients” and “throw them in jail with drug dealers and arsonists.” Indeed, he said, by criminalizing medical research, the anti-SCNT legislation would mandate that a cured patient’s first steps “out of a wheelchair” would be “into a jail cell.”
His foil, Cathy Ruse, spokeswoman for Missourians Against Human Cloning, treated these remarks with bemused derision. “That is hysterical,” she said. “No one wants to jail doctors and patients.” Remember, said Ruse, “Embryonic stem cell research is already legal today–it’s happening across the state.” Amendment 2 would not change that. But it would carve out a constitutional right to perform SCNT–which, according to Ruse, is the same thing as cloning.
That gets to the crux of the debate: What qualifies as “cloning”? And does somatic cell nuclear transfer fall under that rubric? In SCNT, a nucleus taken from a body (somatic) cell, which contains the DNA of an organism, is transferred into an egg cell that has had its own nucleus removed, thus creating an ovum that is a genetic replica of the original body cell. This egg, if implanted and brought to term, would produce a cloned organism.
The text of Amendment 2 adds up to nearly 2,000 words. Slogging through it can be headache-inducing, given the dense biomedical jargon. But it states a few points quite plainly: “Any stem cell research permitted under federal law may be conducted in Missouri, and any stem cell therapies and cures permitted under federal law may be provided to patients in Missouri.” Also: “No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.” So far, no disputes.
But then comes the definition of “cloning”: “to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.” In other words, cloning is equated with implantation.
SCNT is in fact the first, necessary step in cloning. But as long as the egg it produces is kept in a test tube, Amendment 2 declares that it is not a clone. The embryos created with this technique are a source of human stem cells, and the right to create them is the point of Amendment 2–hence, it refers to “any scientific or medical research involving human stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization blastocysts or from somatic cell nuclear transfer.”
Most major scientific organizations strongly favor SCNT–including the National Academy of Sciences, the National Institutes of Health, the American Medical Association, and the International Society for Stem Cell Research–but also define it as “therapeutic cloning.” According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, SCNT “involves removing the nucleus of an unfertilized egg cell, replacing it with the material from the nucleus of a ‘somatic cell’ (a skin, heart, or nerve cell, for example), and stimulating this cell to begin dividing. Once the cell begins dividing, stem cells can be extracted 5-6 days later and used for research.”
“It’s not cloning a person,” Rubin told me last week. “Our initiative bans any attempt to do that.” True. But the relevant questions then become: Must a human embryo be implanted in a uterus for it to be a “clone”? Or does fusing the nucleus of an “egg cell” and the nucleus of a “somatic cell” amount to creating a “cloned” embryo? Will voters recognize the difference?
On November 7, Missourians will be able to read a brief “fair ballot” summary of Amendment 2 in the voting booth. The summary totals nearly 140 words. Among other things, it tells voters that a “yes” vote will “ban human cloning or attempted cloning.” In 2005, Missourians Against Human Cloning sued to have the ballot language changed, arguing it was deceptive. A court ruled against them, finding the summary fair, accurate, and impartial.
It has thus been an uphill battle for Amendment 2 foes. The Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures has spent nearly $30 million supporting the initiative. They get succor from the state’s influential science lobby. Most Democrats favor Amendment 2. So do Governor Matt Blunt, a popular Republican, and former GOP senator John Danforth, an honorary co-chairman of the Cures coalition. Danforth has said the amendment “will save lives” but also preserve “the sanctity of life.”
By far the biggest financial backers of the coalition have been James and Virginia Stowers, two cancer survivors who used their fortune to establish the nonprofit Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City. According to a study trumpeted on the coalition’s website, “the planned ‘Phase II’ expansion of the Stowers Institute . . . will only go forward in Missouri if Amendment 2 passes and ensures that the Institute will be able to conduct any stem cell research allowed under federal law.”
Though the amendment has polled extremely well since its introduction, critics have lately narrowed the gap. Missouri is, after all, a red state with a hefty pro-life movement. After the Michael J. Fox clip aired, Missourians Against Human Clon ing rolled out their own celebrity-filled ad, which included St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Jeff Suppan, NFL quarterback Kurt Warner, actress Patricia Heaton, and Passion of the Christ star James Caviezel. This group also claims the amendment will hurt women by encouraging an exploitative market in human eggs.
On both sides, the media blitz shows no signs of abating. Amendment 2 may or may not deserve passage. But let’s hope Missourians at least understand what they’re voting for–a constitutional rubber stamp for therapeutic cloning.
Duncan Currie is a reporter for THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
