Cures Without Cloning IS a Scientific Reality

Commentary by Michael Temporal, M.D.

Over the past few months scientists have accomplished one of the most significant medical breakthroughs in recent history. At least three teams of researchers have successfully “reprogrammed” ordinary skin cells to take on the pluripotent powers of embryonic stem cells.

This relatively simple technique holds real promise for finding new cures and treatments without the dangerous, unethical and impractical problems of human cloning experiments. Experts from around the globe are declaring this the end of the human cloning debate.

But not in Missouri, where a well-funded, pro-cloning political agenda has clouded and distorted the basic scientific facts.

Even now, when everyone interested in finding cures should be rejoicing over this exciting news, the so-called Coalition for Lifesaving Cures has scrambled to downplay this amazing breakthrough and doggedly reiterate the need to pursue human cloning. Of course, they do not actually admit human cloning is well, human cloning. It’s interesting that all the scientists involved and quoted regarding direct reprogramming use scientifically accurate terms like “human cloning” and “embryo.” Such honesty is uncomfortable for those in Missouri who have created their own politically-motivated euphemisms to avoid those basic terms.

Leading researchers disagree with the Missouri cloning proponents. Ian Wilmut, who cloned Dolly the Sheep, recently announced he was abandoning human cloning because the new techniques are the future of stem cell research. James Thomson, who first discovered embryonic stem cells and was part of the recent breakthrough said, “…it will not be long before the stem cell wars are a distant memory.” “It is a bit like turning lead into gold,” said Robert Lanza, chief science officer of Advance Cell Technology. Almost universally, noted scientists and medical experts are clearly stating there is now no therapeutic reason for human cloning.

But again, not in Missouri where human cloning and the right to pay for it with our tax dollars are constitutionally protected.

The contrast between the new technology and human cloning is striking. With direct reprogramming, researchers added four genes to an ordinary skin cell to mimic what an egg does. The researchers have stated the procedure is fairly simple and can be easily replicated. The cells look like and act like embryonic stem cells and are a DNA match for the individual. Compare that to human cloning experiments which would require: millions of human eggs, posing health risks for thousands of women; the creation and destruction of countless human embryos; overcoming a number of scientific hurdles such as tumor creation; and finally would cost taxpayers potentially billions of dollars.

Now in Missouri, we have the opportunity to prohibit human cloning and ensure our tax dollars aren’t used for unnecessary human cloning experiments.

We can close the cloning loopholes in our constitution. We can champion research with real promise for cures and treatments without sacrificing integrity and human dignity.

Please join me and the many physicians and scientists across our state in supporting the Cures Without Cloning Initiative. This concise, scientifically accurate amendment would prohibit human cloning research in Missouri and protect our tax dollars from being wasted on this unnecessary, unethical and unproven research.

Ask yourself why are those who last year claimed their only goal was cures not cheering this giant leap forward. I am.

Publisher’s Note...

As readers may or may not know, the ‘ballot question summary’ for the Cures Without Cloning Initiative has been challenged in court by the Cures Without Cloning Campaign (CWC).

The ballot question summary is a legally required portion of the actual ballot which voters see when they walk into the voting booth that summarizes what they are voting for or against. The question summary for all ballot issues is drafted by the Missouri Secretary of State.

The wording of CWC’s initiative question summary, which Secretary of State Robin Carnahan drafted, misrepresents the actual initiative and, as asserted by CWC, is illegally biased to mislead voters into rejecting the initiative.

For clarification, the Secretary of State is legally required to draft a ‘non-biased’ short ballot question summary for all citizen initiative petitions. Until all legal questions regarding the wording of any ballot question are settled, signatures previously collected would be found invalid if the slightest alteration were to be made to the ballot question.

Once the CWC court case is settled, signatures can then be collected to place the initiative on the ballot in either the August Primary Election or November General Election ballot this fall.

Michael Temporal, M.D. is a family physician with the Southern Illinois Healthcare Foundation and Associate Director of the Saint Louis University School of Medicine
Family Medicine Residency Program.