|
Metroland Magazine, April 29, 2005
We Don't Need No Stinkin' Scientists
Glenn Weiser
Cloning prohibition in stem-cell bill could drive research and jobs out of
New York
Eager to keep New York competitive in the stem-cell research race with
California, New Jersey, Massachusetts and other states, Assembly Speaker
Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) introduced a bill on March 1 that would create
an institute to fund biotechnological research, including stem-cell work,
with $100 million of taxpayer money for its first year. The same day, State
Sen. Nicholas A. Spano (R-Yonkers) announced his intention to field a
similar measure in the Senate. Another stem-cell research bill was already
proposed in mid-January by Sen. Liz Krueger (D-Manhattan). Gov. George E.
Pataki, while wondering where the funding for the initiative would come
from, called the proposals "attractive."
From all this, it may sound like the Empire State is poised to take a
leading role in stem-cell research and the new treatments and possible
cures for afflictions from Alzheimer's disease to spinal cord injuries that
it promises.
Guess again. Differences between the Democratic and Republican versions of
the bills on the controversial issue of cloning embryonic stem cells for
therapeutic rather than reproductive purposes could keep New York off the
national biotech stage. If that happens, say researchers, the state will
suffer a much-feared brain drain as its top researchers get recruited away
to states that have already approved therapeutic cloning. Thousands of
expected jobs may also fail to materialize.
Silver's and Krueger's bills (A6300 and S433A respectively) support
therapeutic cloning and ban reproductive cloning. Scientists are
particularly interested in therapeutic cloning, also known as "somatic
cell nuclear transfer," because they believe it holds the greatest
promise for unlocking the secrets of several major diseases. "SCNT has
tremendous potential value as a research tool," Dr. Ross A. Frommer,
associate dean for government affairs at Columbia University Medical Center,
said in a telephone interview. "If we could study something like
Alzheimer's disease in the petri dish we could develop a much greater
understanding of it."
Traditionally, one of the most common sources for embryonic stem cells for
research has been extra embryos (at the very early blastocyst stage)
created by in-vitro fertilization for infertile couples. Therapeutic
cloning, however, allows embryonic stem cells to be grown from an egg cell
and the nucleus of an adult donor cell. It does not require a fertilized
human embryo.
A poll commissioned last month by the Coalition for the Advancement of
Medical Research showed that 60 percent of the public supports
embryonic-stem-cell and therapeutic-cloning research. Religious
conservatives, however, consider this type of experimentation a
"culture of life" issue along with abortion and human euthanasia
and oppose it. In a recent New York Times column, Maureen Dowd reported
that Pope Benedict XVI thinks it should be limited and has called cloning
"more dangerous than weapons of mass destruction."
Whether Spano, who is Catholic, shares the views of religious conservatives
on this issue is uncertain. But his March 1 press release says his
forthcoming bill would "strictly prohibit cloning of any type,"
and an April 5 news roundup on the Web site of the influential New York
State Catholic Conference also reports that Spano "does not support
cloning of any kind."
Buttonholed at a popular Albany restaurant a few weeks ago, Spano confirmed
that his bill would not allow therapeutic cloning and would instead fund
research only on adult stem cells. "That's what's right for right
now," he said. Repeated calls to his office requesting further comment
were not returned.
In addition to hurting New York's prospects in the biotech race, such a
prohibition, if passed into law, could also have the effect of shutting
down, or even criminalizing, privately funded research already in progress
at Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Cornell University and other institutions
in the state. Reacting to this possibility, Frommer said Columbia opposes
any effort to ban somatic cell nuclear transfer.
Assemblyman Pete Grannis (D-Manhattan) agrees. "We obviously want to
have as open and welcoming an environment as possible to make sure that we
are not out of sync with the initiatives that are underway in other
states," he said.
But that has already begun. Last month, Albany's Business Review reported
that the state of New Jersey has started headhunting scientists working in
New York institutions. The Business Review noted that ads have run in The
New York Times and other publications "touting New Jersey's $150
million investment in stem cell research," and that "New Yorkers
for the Advancement of Medical Research said New York is at risk of losing
some of its scientific brain power because California, New Jersey and other
states have
made commitments to stem cell research."
Whether these losses can be stanched depends on the fates of the stem-cell
bills in the Legislature. Silver's bill is a shoo-in in the Assembly. But
Krueger, reached for comment by phone, doubted that Majority Leader Joseph
L. Bruno (R-Brunswick) would even allow her bill to come up for a vote in
the Senate. "In a world of rational politics, my Republican colleagues
who support stem-cell research would ask to cosponsor my legislation or ask
to take it and use it under their own names, and I would let them do
so," she said.
Spano, a Republican, has a much better chance of getting a vote on his
bill. But if, as seems likely, his legislation passes containing a
prohibition on therapeutic cloning, it would then have to be reconciled
with the Assembly's version before being sent to the governor for signing.
It appears doubtful, however, that either Spano or Silver would give any
ground on this hot-button provision, leaving prospects for stem-cell
research in New York looking dim.
</tbody>
|
