Arthur Caplan: Obama election signals change in stem cell fight

The vast majority of emails I send to scientists and academics inviting them to sign Declan’s petition to the UN on research cloning of embryos and stem cells are still being dumped to spam boxes (or to cyberspace, see blog of 4 September “Obama: Yes to stem cells, funding”). Yesterday, I only received nine out-of-office autoreplies from 314 emails: for example, 80 emails to the European Network of Cancer Registries yielded three autoreplies; 43 to the University of California San Francisco, just two. From 138 emails I didn’t receive a single autoreply: 51 were sent to the University of Wisconsin Stem Cell & Regenerative Medicine Center and 87 to the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center. Hardly surprising no one signed. In fact, this week I have sent a total of 640 emails, which have resulted in just one signature (two weeks ago, it took 1,072 emails for the same result). We really have little option in this situation other than to play the odds and get off as many emails as we can in the hope that a few get through - the petition has so far been signed by 580 scientists and academics, including 24 Nobel Laureates.

For the last two days a cleaner has been arriving at the place we sleep in at night at 4.00am, twenty minutes before we get up - since 7 September we have been sleeping tucked away, about twenty paces from the side entrance of a building, down some twelve steps (prior to that we slept for almost two years in a porch). This morning this guy was outside the building as we were packing and, when he reappeared with a hose to fill his bucket, we wondered if we were in for at least the wetting we got on 3 November (see blog “State Stem Cell Policies Deserve National Attention”). We are again keeping our fingers crossed for this weekend in the Catholic Manna Centre, where Declan was assaulted on 19 June (see blog “Declan assaulted in the Manna Centre”); and should this cleaner get out of hand on Monday morning we will seek to make a statement in the local police station, which should make for some interesting online writing.

Caplan speaking at a European Commission conference (Brussels) in 2004

We believe that the momentum is swinging behind Declan’s petition and what will be our campaign in support of embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning. In the US, the election of President-elect Barack Obama “signals a shift in the bioethics debate,” writes Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics of the University of Pennsylvania, in an MSNBC.com opinion piece. (Caplan is one of the world’s most quoted medical ethicists - and one of the first signatories of Declan’s petition.)

According to Caplan, last week’s US presidential election will be remembered for its impact on core bioethical topics that have long dominated American domestic politics, including embryonic stem cell research and abortion rights. Caplan writes that the failure of state ballot initiatives that aimed to restrict abortion rights signals that the abortion debate may be subsiding, while newer bioethical concerns that are likely to dominate American politics for years to come, including physician-assisted suicide, are emerging. In addition, he argues, the election of President-elect Obama has brought the fight over embryonic stem cell research in the US “to an end”, because Obama has pledged to lift federal restrictions on the research.

Caplan points out that the passage of Michigan’s Proposal 2 – allowing research on embryos that were created for fertility treatments and would otherwise be discarded – means that 10 states now have laws permitting embryonic stem cell research. “These 10 are likely to be the recipients of an executive order that the new president will undoubtedly sign shortly after taking office, freeing up federal funds for embryonic stem cell research while laying out new regulatory guidelines,” Caplan writes. He adds: “Many, including myself, would argue that the ongoing debate over the morality of stem cell research is really just a stalking horse for the abortion debate.” And efforts to further restrict abortion did not fare well at the ballot box, with voters in South Dakota and California both rejecting efforts to restrict abortion rights, Caplan notes. In addition, a Colorado ballot measure that would have defined a fertilised egg as a person with constitutional rights failed by a measure of three to one.

“Taken all together, this series of votes represents an important moment in public bioethics in America,” Caplan writes. “Like it or not – and I am well aware that many are not ready to let go of these issues – the nation may be starting to move past the endless battles over stem cells, embryos and abortion.” He argues that embryonic stem cell research is advancing, embryos are not going to be given legal status as persons and further restrictions on abortion are unlikely. As these issues fade from the spotlight, how Americans die and treat painful medical conditions will emerge as the dominant bioethical debate (Caplan, MSNBC.com, 6/11).

Right to Life and the Michigan Catholic Conference – two longtime powerhouse cultural warriors in state politics – underwent a rugged and uncustomary Election Day, said The Detroit News. They watched a ballot proposal they had feverishly championed with millions of dollars go down to defeat. And many anti-abortion candidates fell to abortion-rights advocates.

“It was probably the worst night Right to Life has had in Michigan in a couple of decades,” Bill Ballenger, a former state senator and publisher of the Inside Michigan Politics newsletter, told The Detroit News. “And the Catholic Church hierarchy has to be embarrassed that the church spent $5 million in a failed effort to defeat a ballot proposal to ease embryonic stem cell research given all the other problems out there and the church’s social justice mission,” he said.

According to The Detroit News, neither the Catholic church nor Right to Life was willing to say they had suffered irreversible setbacks and said they still would be able to pursue an agenda that protects the dignity of life and other issues important to the church. One of the first things they want to look at is regulations for the stem cell issue, Proposal 2, which the church bitterly fought. Detroit News exit polling showed 56 percent of voters who identified themselves as Catholic supported Proposal 2 – overall the measure passed by a 53-47 margin. (Cain, Detroit News, 13/11).

One quote that I think particularly complements Caplan’s opinion piece comes from Marci Hamilton, the Paul R Verkuil Chair in Public Law at Benjamin N Cardozo School of Law. She opens her legal commentary in FindLaw, titled “The Five Religion-Related Issues that Should Most Concern the Future Obama Administration”, by writing: “With the election of Obama, there is finally some hope that the United States can turn to a more rational set of policies relating to religion.”

State Stem Cell Policies Deserve National Attention

This morning at 5.00am, as we were getting ready to leave the place we sleep in at night - since 7 September we have been sleeping tucked away, about twenty paces from the side entrance of a building, down some twelve steps (prior to that we slept for almost two years in a porch) - we nearly got drenched: one moment I am tying my shoelaces on one of the steps and the next water is pouring down by my side from a hose, all our bags still about the place. This is actually the second time a cleaner has come out on us with a hose (see blog of 19 October “United Nations Set to Revisit Cloning Issue”).

We find it a bit odd, especially since communications started out cordial between us and employees: we were visited by an employee within days, and on three occasions we have been given food. Also, according to the website of the company that owns the building, they are well respected and not only fund raise for science education (Declan’s petition to the UN on research cloning of embryos and stem cells has been signed by 571 scientists and academics, including 24 Nobel Laureates), but run a project for the homeless.

We will seek to lodge a complaint with the City of London Police should this situation get out of hand. Of course, there is always the option of soaking our shelter for the night to ensure we can’t bed down. In this instance, we have yet to decide if we will sleep anywhere nearby for the night and, should the police insist we move on, I take the arrest as I did on 11 September (see blog “I am arrested for breach of the peace”). As I stated in the blog of 13 September “Letter from the City of London Police”, I am well prepared to have the legality of such an arrest tested under the Human Rights Act 1998, and even on appeal, if necessary.



Tomorrow, Michigan voters will decide on Proposition 2, a constitutional amendment that would allow narrowly defined research on human embryos that are leftover after fertility treatment and that would otherwise be discarded if not donated by patients for stem cell research. “Michigan has one of the most restrictive laws in the country with respect to embryonic stem cell research: it is legal for patients to discard human embryos but not legal for scientists to perform research on these discarded embryos even if that is what the patients want,” write University of Michigan’s Liz Barry and Sean Morrison in Science Progress. “This law delays medical research without saving a single embryo from destruction,” they add. (Liz Barry is the Managing Director of the Life Sciences Institute of the University of Michigan and Sean Morrison is the Director of the University's Center for Stem Cell Biology.)

Only four states have laws as restrictive as Michigan: Arkansas, North Dakota, South Dakota and Louisiana. “Both presidential candidates and a majority of members of Congress have affirmed their support for loosened restrictions on embryonic stem cell research,” Barry and Morrison write. “The loosening of federal funding restrictions will provide a boost to stem cell research nationwide, but will increase the gulf between scientists in Michigan as compared to those in other states. Unlike scientists at other major research universities, scientists in Michigan universities will remain unable to derive new embryonic stem cell lines for use in expanded federal funding. So is the Michigan vote consequential for national public policy on stem cell research?”

The answer is yes. “A peer-governed competitive national system for funding biomedical research has been a fundamental policy and programmatic triumph for the United States,” they write. “The National Institutes of Health invest over $28 billion each year, 80 percent of which is awarded in peer-reviewed competitive grants to researchers across the nation ... Under this system, the United States has become the global leader in biomedical research. Key to our success has been choosing the best research to fund based a nationwide competition, judged by scientists themselves rather than politicians or lobbyists. American science succeeds because it is a meritocracy, rewarding achievement and ability over more provincial concerns.

“This winning approach is thwarted by the patchwork of conflicting state laws and policies regarding human embryonic stem cell research. Forty-five minutes south of Ann Arbor, Michigan, scientists in Toledo, Ohio, are free to use human embryos in research and to derive new stem cell lines. Are the values of Ohio residents so different from the values of Michigan residents (other than in football)? Across the country in California, the state just awarded over $59 million to support the stem cell research of California scientists and has committed a total of $3 billion overall. Massachusetts is investing $1 billion in a similar program, and New Jersey, New York, Wisconsin, Connecticut, and Illinois have also pledged millions of dollars in funding. Yet scientists in Michigan would go to jail for doing the work for which scientists in these states are receiving millions of dollars in state funding.”

According to Barry and Morrison, diverse and separate state funding undercuts the successful system of choosing which research to fund based on nationwide competition and peer review. “California scientists are only competing with other California scientists for the funds available there and Illinois scientists will only compete with other Illinois scientists,” they write. “Scientists in other states, who may sometimes have greater expertise, will not have the opportunity to help solve the important problems targeted by these states for funding. This fractured system is antithetical to the goal of funding the most meritorious research and to engaging all of our resources in the war against disease. Families affected by disease don’t care where the cure comes from. Yet under the current system, geography drives research investment and determines the problems and approaches that our scientists focus on.”

Barry and Morrison conclude: “Michigan is home to the University of Michigan, one of the world’s leading research universities. According to various measures of scientific impact, UM is one of the top universities in the world in the field of stem cell research. Yet that impact comes almost entirely from research in the area of adult stem cells. If the upcoming ballot initiative in Michigan fails, it will delay Michigan’s ability to develop in the area of pluripotent stem cell research and reinforce the idea that geography should trump merit or promise when the nation determines scientific priorities.”

Proposition 2 pits the state’s powerful public and private biological research centers against large, conservative Catholic and evangelical populations who equate destroying fertilized eggs with murder, said the Wall Street Journal. “I'd call it a religious-ethical friction,” Leonard Fleck, a medical ethicist at Michigan State University in Lansing, who favors the proposal, told the Journal. “It’s obviously related to the abortion issue. What gives it a different moral colouring, what we’d hope to accomplish with the embryonic stem cells, is the saving of human life.”

According to polls, Michigan voters are split down the middle. The proposal’s opponents, gathered as Michigan Citizens Against Unrestricted Science and Experimentation, have raised more than $7 million in contributions – $5 million alone from the Michigan Catholic Conference – to defeat the initiative and keep the ban on the destruction of human embryos for medical research in place, according to the Journal. Our campaign in support of embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), will seek to make the case that such interventions at state level have led to very serious threats to the entire US biomedical research enterprise, replacing science with ideology, and replacing rational regulation with restrictions based on ideology that undercut “a peer-governed competitive national system for funding biomedical research that has been a fundamental policy and programmatic triumph for the United States”.

Letter to the Leader of Tower Hamlets Council

On Friday one scientist signed Declan’s petition to the UN on research cloning of embryos and stem cells despite me having emailed 242 scientists. And in keeping with the norm, I received an exceedingly low number of out-of-office autoreplies – six; for example, 57 emails to Newcastle Biomedicine Newcastle University yielded only one autoreply. Still, on Wednesday I received two autoreplies out of a total of 271 emails (see previous blog) so presumably this time a larger number of my emails were delivered to inboxes, and not spam boxes (or cyberspace, see blog of 4 September “Obama: Yes to stem cells, funding”). And yesterday afternoon Declan had to email the Leader of Tower Hamlets Council regarding Idea Store Whitechapel, the borough's flagship library, learning and information service, and our on-going difficulties with computer bookings and internet access (the email is presented below).

Since 7 September we have been sleeping tucked away, about twenty paces from the side entrance of a building, down some twelve steps. The company that owns the building works with charities, according to their website, but that didn’t stop a cleaner spraying us with a hose at 4.50am this morning as we were packing to leave. I mentioned in the blog of 7 October “Letter to the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of The Big Issue” that the loss of our Big Issue pitches from 10 November - The Big Issue is a magazine sold by homeless people throughout the UK on registered street pitches - speaks ominously of the weeks to come; well, it would appear things have only started.

Former president Bill Clinton stumps for stem cells in Michigan

According to a Detroit News editorial, Michigan voters should vote yes on Proposal 2 - amending the state constitution to lift the ban on embryonic stem cell research - on a November ballot because it would overturn “one of the most backward laws on human embryonic stem cell research in the nation”. Currently, it is against the law to destroy a human embryo in Michigan. In effect, this also bans embryonic stem cell research, since the research process entails embryo destruction.

Proposal 2 is a constitutional amendment that allows embryonic stem cell research under certain conditions. These conditions, said the News, include that the embryos subject to research were created for the purpose of fertility treatment, the person seeking the treatment voluntarily opted to donate the embryos for research and that they would be discarded anyway if they were not going to be used for research. The amendment forbids the sale of embryos for stem cell research and keeps in place Michigan's ban on the cloning of a human embryo for both reproductive and research purposes.

The embryonic stem cell research ban, said the News, damages the ability of the University of Michigan, one of the leading stem cell research centers, to conduct cutting-edge embryonic stem cell research and recruit leading researchers to the center. Sean Morrison, head of the University of Michigan's Center for Stem Cell Biology, comments that “under current law it is legal in Michigan's fertility clinics to discard human embryos, but not to use them for medical research to try and help patients” (Detroit News, 2/10).

Right now Michigan is one of only five states to ban the use of discarded embryos for medical research (the others: South Dakota, North Dakota, Louisiana and Arkansas), but not everyone wants to see things change. Opposing the ballot question is Michigan Citizens Against Unrestricted Science and Experimentation, which had raised nearly $595,000 by mid-September, said The Ann Arbor News. It is principally supported by the Michigan Catholic Conference, which contributed $500,000, and Right to Life Michigan, which contributed $76,709. Endorsements include other pro-life and religious organisations, such as Democrats for Life of Michigan and the Family Research Council (Gershman, The Ann Arbor News, 6/10).

According to a new report by the nonpartisan Citizens Research Council of Michigan (CRCM), opponents of embryonic stem cell research argue that life begins at the moment of conception or fertilisation, making research on ‘living’ embryos unethical. Abortion is often tied to embryonic stem cell research even though there is no direct link between the two. CRCM: “Embryonic stem cells are derived from pre-implantation embryos, not from aborted embryos or fetuses.”

Proposal 2 will feature prominently in our campaign in support of embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning under the section “Science and the Law” – as it does in the blogs of 4 September “Obama: Yes to stem cells, funding” and of 10 July “Smithies explains his support for embryonic stem cell research”. Yet another application of embryonic stem cell research will also feature prominently in the campaign: scientists at Edinburgh University (from which we have several signatories) revealed on Wednesday that they have found a way to overcome “a major hurdle in creating pancreas and liver cells from human embryonic stem cells in the laboratory”, said The Scotsman. Additionally, the Los Angeles Times examines issues surrounding leftover embryos, which I would like to turn into a blog. Of course, that assumes I can get computer time!

This is Declan's email yesterday afternoon to the Leader of Tower Hamlets Council, Councillor Lutfur Rahman (at cllr.lutfur.rahman@towerhamlets.gov.uk), who is also the Leader of the Labour Group:

Subject: Idea Store Whitechapel

Dear Cllr Rahman

I refer further to the attached copy of my most recent correspondence with Mr Ian McNicol, Head of Idea Stores, to whom the former Leader of Tower Hamlets Council, Cllr Denise Jones, referred my original complaint of 21 January regarding Idea Store Whitechapel and the repeated loss of computer bookings and internet access on both my wife's card (card no. D000350314) and my card (card no. D000355837) since 14 November 2007.

In the absence of a response from Mr McNichol with respect to the aforementioned complaint, I wish to further confirm that this afternoon at approximately 2.15pm the computer I had booked from 2.00pm to 5.00pm cut out and, after it automatically came back in another card holder's name, I was told by a member of staff to give the computer up as there was no record of a booking in my name from 2.00pm to 3.00pm. (Computers cannot be accessed without a member's name appearing on the monitor at log-in time. Further, I am emailing this during my second one-hour booking on the same computer from 3.00pm to 4.00pm.)

I reconfirm that since my complaint of 21 January to Cllr Jones, my wife and I have not only experienced repeated loss of computer bookings and internet access, but several other problems to boot. For example:

(i) 1 February: the Principal Idea Store Manager, Mr Sergio Dogliani, wrote to me advising that the restriction by Idea Store Whitechapel of my wife and I to a 3-hour maximum free computer use per day as from 29 January stands, despite that for several previous months we were given "additional time" subject to computer availability and in accordance with the Council's then and current "Idea Stores PC Usage Policy";
(ii) 24 June: at approximately 12.30pm, a member of staff threatened my wife with "security" if she did not give her computer up to another card holder, despite that thirty minutes earlier a member of staff had confirmed in writing that my wife had booked the computer from 11.30am to 2.30pm;
(iii) 3 August: both of the computers my wife and I had booked the previous day contained an identical virus which spread to the two USB drives were are using, rendering my wife's portable programs inoperable and corrupting some of my most valuable data;
(iv) 6 August: at approximately 2.45pm, MIMEsweeper, the filter software used by the Idea Store network, blocked access to my Google Mail account due to "Porn Detected". At 3.10pm I was again able to access the account, after which I was informed by the IT technician that "it may happen again for any length of time".

As I explained in my email letters to you of 4 and 6 August, since 22 October 2007 my wife and I have been using as much of our computer time in Idea Store Whitechapel as possible to contact scientists and academics to invite them to sign my petition to the United Nations on therapeutic cloning and the use of stem cells for research and for the treatment of disease. To date, this petition has been signed by 559 scientists and academics, who include recognised authorities from the world's leading universities and research institutes, as well as 24 Nobel Laureates.

I acknowledge receipt of an email of 7 August 2008 from your Personal Assistant, Ms Rachel Bielby, stating: "Cllr Rahman is now on leave until the end of August. I have asked the office of the Director of Communities, Localities and Culture's office to deal with your correspondence." I can confirm that I have not heard from this office, nor indeed from Tower Hamlets Council.

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey

cc Mr Zoinul Abidin, Manager of Idea Store Whitechapel (by email)

Obama: Yes to stem cells, funding

Declan was told by a scientist on Tuesday that he hadn't received any email with the subject "NAC: Petition to the UN on Therapeutic Cloning", not even in his spam box – Declan usually makes three or four random calls, although normally all he gets are voice mails. So it seems that a spam box is too good for Declan's email: scientists and academics can spot it among the junk and decide to sign the petition. It might explain why there were no signatures yesterday despite me emailing 105 scientists; the day before I emailed 139.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama

If elected President of the United States in November, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says he will lift the Bush administration's ban on federal funding of research on embryonic stem cell lines created after 9 August 2001, and ensure that all research on stem cells is conducted ethically and with rigorous oversight. Obama recently answered a fourteen-part questionnaire posed to him and Republican presidential candidate John McCain by the grassroots group Science Debate 2008, which says it hopes to make key science issues a larger part of the election. McCain has said he will also answer the questions.

The questionnaire was a joint effort of Science Debate 2008, Scientists and Engineers for America, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academies (the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine and National Research Council), the Council on Competitiveness and others, together representing more than 125 million voters. The questions dealt with a range of topics including genetics, stem cell research, scientific integrity, and research. "Most of America's major unsolved challenges revolve around these 14 questions," Shawn Otto, chief executive officer of Science Debate 2008, said in a statement. "To move America forward, the next president needs a substantive plan for tackling [the issues] going in, and voters deserve to know what that plan is."

Obama's answer to the question on embryonic stem cell research (Q: "Stem cell research advocates say it may successfully lead to treatments for many chronic diseases and injuries, saving lives, but opponents argue that using embryos as a source for stem cells destroys human life. What is your position on government regulation and funding of stem cell research?") is reproduced here:

Stem cell research holds the promise of improving our lives in at least three ways – by substituting normal cells for damaged cells to treat diabetes, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injury, heart failure and other disorders; by providing scientists with safe and convenient models of disease for drug development; and by helping to understand fundamental aspects of normal development and cell dysfunction.

For these reasons, I strongly support expanding research on stem cells. I believe that the restrictions that President Bush has placed on funding of human embryonic stem cell research have handcuffed our scientists and hindered our ability to compete with other nations. As president, I will lift the current administration's ban on federal funding of research on embryonic stem cell lines created after August 9, 2001 through executive order, and I will ensure that all research on stem cells is conducted ethically and with rigorous oversight.

I recognize that some people object to government support of research that requires cells to be harvested from human embryos. However, hundreds of thousands of embryos stored in the U.S. in in-vitro fertilization clinics will not be used for reproductive purposes, and will eventually be destroyed. I believe that it is ethical to use these extra embryos for research that could save lives when they are freely donated for that express purpose.

I am also aware that there have been suggestions that human stem cells of various types, derived from sources other than embryos, make the use of embryonic stem cells unnecessary. I don't agree. While adult stem cells, such as those harvested from blood or bone marrow, are already used for treatment of some diseases, they do not have the versatility of embryonic stem cells and cannot replace them. Recent discoveries indicate that adult skin cells can be reprogrammed to behave like stem cells; these are exciting findings that might in the future lead to an alternate source of highly versatile stem cells. However, embryonic stem cells remain the "gold standard," and studies of all types of stem cells should continue in parallel for the foreseeable future.

Rather than restrict the funding of such research, I favor responsible oversight of it, in accord with recent reports from the National Research Council. Recommendations from the NRC reports are already being followed by institutions that conduct human embryonic stem cell research with funds from a variety of sources. An expanded, federally-supported stem cell research program will encourage talented U.S. scientists to engage in this important new field, will allow more effective oversight, and will signal to other countries our commitment to compete in this exciting area of medical research.

A recent article in the News-Journal, titled "East Texans find success in stem cell treatments", quoted Kevin Wilson, director of public policy for The American Society for Cell Biology, as saying that US Food and Drug Administration officials are cautious about allocating research money toward embryonic stem cell research, and that the government is losing billions of dollars in research time and money by stalling on embryonic stem cell research. "The president's policy puts stem cell research in a time warp," Wilson said. "In Singapore, stem cell research accounts for about $5 billion of its economy, and the country has invested billions into the research as well. We must have the US policy overturned."

Besides the hotly contested presidential election, Michigan voters will vote in November on a ballot proposal that would loosen restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. Medical News Today reports that the official wording of the ballot measure says that it will expand use of human embryos for any research permitted under federal law subject to the following limits: the embryos are created for fertility treatment purposes; are not suitable for implantation or are in excess of clinical needs; would be discarded unless used for research; were donated by the person seeking fertility treatment; provide that stem cells cannot be taken from human embryos more than 14 days after cell division begins; prohibit any person from selling or purchasing human embryos for stem cell research; and prohibit state and local laws that prevent, restrict or discourage stem cell research, future therapies and cures. It also quotes Joe Schwarz, a physician and former Republican member of Congress who heads the Cure Michigan campaign, as saying: "What we are talking about here is providing cures for people, providing therapies for people. In this century, a majority of therapies and cures will be from genetic therapy and cellular therapy and not from popping chemical compounds, which is what we've done all our lives. So this is a movement forward."

Right now Michigan is one of only five states to ban the use of discarded embryos for medical research (the others: South Dakota, North Dakota, Louisiana and Arkansas), but not everyone wants to see things change. The Michigan Catholic Conference, which has joined the ballot question committee Michigan Citizens Against Unrestricted Science and Experimentation (MiCAUSE), states on their homepage that the proposal "would amend the state constitution to allow for unregulated, unrestricted embryo destruction in Michigan. The proposal also opens the door for human cloning to become legal in this state." In contrast, a letter of support for the ballot initiative to support embryonic stem cell research was issued only yesterday by the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR), an independent, nonprofit organisation which represents over 2,600 leading stem cell researchers from around the world, stating: "The ethical safeguards proposed under Michigan's ballot initiative would provide an ethical framework within which important medical research could go forward."

Melvin Lester, Adjunct Professor of Medicine and President of Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research and Cures spoke at the House Judiciary Committee hearing in November 2007: "Do as you please. Don’t participate in embryonic stem cell research if it is against your better judgment, but please don’t tell us that the citizens of forty-five of our states that permit, endorse and support embryonic stem cell research are unethical, immoral and murderers. The majority of the citizens of Michigan like the majority of the citizens of the United States want this law rescinded."