Debate over ‘human cloning’ stem cell research ban heats up as veto looms

Proposed bans on somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), a technique used in some forms of stem cell research, continue to wind their way through the legislative process as the debate over the provision has spread to the pages of newspapers statewide, mostly in opposition to the ban. Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) has vociferously defended the ban and has attacked reporters it says have not gotten the facts right.

Currently, a ban on state and federal funding for SCNT is contained in the higher education omnibus bill that passed both the Minnesota Senate and the House, and a provision to make SCNT a crime is in the health and human services omnibus bill that awaits further debate.

In the Senate, the ban is being promoted by Sen. Michelle Fischbach (R-Paynesville), whose husband Scott Fischbach runs MCCL, an affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).

The American Council on Science and Health questioned the motives of those supporting the ban. The group cited a recent Minnesota Independent article that sorted out facts and myths surrounding the debate, particularly some assertions by MCCL that appear to muddle the facts surrounding the issue.

ACSH’s Dr. Gilbert Ross came up with some possible reasons for Sen. Fischbach’s motivation: “Well, she may not be intentionally trying to mislead the public — she may just be ignorant,” he quips. “When I read stories like this about legislators ruling on scientific issues, I realize why we have all of these bans of safe and useful products — because these people have no idea what they’re talking about. They get hundreds of letters from card-toting members of the NRDC, EWG and who knows which other fringe groups, saying, ‘We need to ban this chemical for the sake of our children!’ and then, lo and behold, the legislature votes to ban it. In this case, the Minnesota Senate has been presented with the science, and yet the majority are making the issue into a moral one, although if they listened to the science, they would know it’s not even a moral issue. There is neither a scientific nor a moral reason why you should be against SCNT. Embryos aren’t harmed in the process, and it provides a vast potential to treat illnesses that are currently incurable.”

Minnesota’s major media outlets have covered the ban this week. MCCL called the Star Tribune’s Wednesday feature on the issue “hopelessly confused,” said the paper was “terribly at fault for publishing” the article and added, “The reporter, Jenna Ross, is uneducated and obviously not qualified to be writing about this subject.” They offered the same criticism of a Pioneer Press article on Thursday.

The University of Minnesota held a press conference on Thursday with families who have been helped by stem cell therapy, and although no SCNT stem cell treatments have yet been used, the university asserted that it could and that efforts to curtail research could prevent future treatments.

“The authors of this bill are trying to confuse people into thinking stem cell research, that can save so many lives, is human cloning. It is not,” said Sherri Gunvalson, whose son has a fatal form of muscular dystrophy. “If they succeed in passing this horrible bill, it will be another step in an effort to ban stem cell research in the misguided belief that somehow this ban is pro-life.”

Following the press conference, MCCL put out a statement defending the bil:

“The stories of young people being helped by the University of Minnesota Stem Cell Institute are very compelling. All Minnesotans want cures to be found. It is important to note than none of the patients who shared their stories today were helped by human cloning. The legislation that is currently under consideration would in no way affect existing adult or embryonic stem cell research. The proposed ban on human cloning does one thing — it bans human cloning. Numerous countries across the globe have done the same thing, and the United Nations has also called for a ban on all forms of human cloning. We repeat our call for research to be done at the U of M that is ethical and life affirming.”

What MCCL leaves out is that the United Nations is currently reopening the debate on whether to ban the actual cloning of human beings while allowing SCNT, also called therapeutic cloning, to continue.

MCCL and Fischbach have rejected efforts to amend legislation to clarify the difference between reproductive cloning — the creation of a new human being through SCNT — and therapeutic cloning, which creates a low number of cells, for research.

As Sen. Ron Latz (DFL-St. Louis Park) notes in a recent press release, “Their so-called ban on cloning does nothing more than impose a very conservative religious definition of when life begins on the scope of scientific stem cell research in Minnesota.”

And the energy expended by the Legislature may be all for naught; MinnPost reported on Thursday that Gov. Mark Dayton is likely to veto any provision in the budget bills dealing with “human cloning” bans.