c. 2005 Religion News Service

(UNDATED) Opponents of embryonic stem cell research have long contended the practice should wither because it’s morally wrong, but conservative-leaning states are now sprinting to prove it’s also a big waste of money.

The “red states” strategy _ so named for the states’ tendency to vote Republican in national elections _ increasingly hinges on showcasing alternatives in the burgeoning field of regenerative medicine. From Missouri to Virginia, the race is on to find therapies that save human embryos and create high-paying medical jobs for state voters.

That contrasts with the big bet on embryonic research in most Democratic “blue states.”

To grow the nation’s pool of “adult” stem cells, red states such as New Mexico and South Dakota are urging mothers to donate umbilical cord material after childbirth. Missouri lawmakers passed a bill to make the state a national hub for umbilical cord blood banking. The Virginia General Assembly authorized a fund for stem cell research even as it banned the use of public dollars for embryonic research.

Stakes are high. Winning the regenerative medicine race could require red state taxpayers to invest untold millions of dollars, since cutting-edge research depends on arsenals of sophisticated facilities and talent. Payoffs could be as dazzling as treatments that allow the lame to walk, or as disappointing as a never-ending, bank-busting quest for buried medical treasure.

Just in case a medically fascinated American public isn’t persuaded by the ideology of a “culture of life,” red states are building their case in pragmatic terms as well.

“When Virginia leads the way in investing in adult stem cell research _ the right kind of stem cell research _ we hope and plan that will prove successful and other states will abandon their efforts” in embryonic research, said Victoria Cobb, executive director of the Family Foundation, a Virginia lobbying group.

But such a road to success could be uphill for red states.

Polls show public support for embryonic research to be growing. Between May 2002 and May 2005, the percentage of Americans deeming embryonic research “morally acceptable” climbed from 52 to 60, according to surveys conducted by the Washington-based Pew Research Center for the People and Press. The blue states of California and New Jersey have kicked off an apparent race to be first in embryonic discoveries as they earmarked $3 billion and $550 million, respectively, for research.

What’s more, blue-state researchers are reporting progress in circumventing the ethical problems associated with destroying embryos when harvesting stem cells. In the latest issue of the science journal Nature, released in mid-October, two Massachusetts teams described procedures by which embryonic stem cells can be developed without destroying an embryo.

Even so, opponents of embryonic research remain wary and say investments in the practice won’t pay dividends either medically or economically. They cite, for instance, a warning issued in September by Lord Robert Winston, president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.

“The study of stem cells is one of the most exciting areas in biology, but I think it is unlikely that embryonic stem cells are likely to be useful in health care for a long time,” Winston told scientists gathered in London. Even so, British “parliamentarians were clearly led to believe that a major clinical application was just around the corner … . When disappointment sets in, as may be possible, we can expect a massive backlash by the `Right To Life’ groups who are always so ready to pounce when they perceive a chink in our arguments.”

Supporters of embryonic research say the area hasn’t yet borne fruit because it’s relatively new and has thus far lacked adequate government funding. They point to a Bush administration policy restricting federal funding to research on embryonic stem cell lines discovered before Aug. 9, 2001. More is needed, proponents argue, because embryonic stem cells are more adaptable than adult ones and are therefore better positioned to yield treatments for multiple ailments.

Even in red states, the debate is far from finished. This month (October) in Missouri, for instance, activists led by Republican John Danforth kicked off a campaign for a state constitutional amendment to guarantee that any federally approved procedures would also be protected in Missouri. Example: State lawmakers wouldn’t be able to ban the use of cloned embryos for stem cell production if the procedure were deemed acceptable under federal law.

Meanwhile, opponents are painting the dearth of embryo-based cures to date as a sign that the endeavor is hopeless, especially when compared with emerging successes in red states. The Washington-based Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics claims adult stem cells have yielded 65 successful therapies to date while embryonic research has thus far yielded none.

“I think there’s a herd mentality that everybody has to get on board with (embryonic stem cell research) lest they be left behind,” says spokesperson Gene Tarne. Yet other options appear more promising, he says, in part because “basic research can be carried out using animal models which for most people raises no ethical issues.”

(OPTIONAL TRIM FOLLOWS. STORY MAY END HERE.)

But adult stem cell research can be tough to justify in economic terms because there may not be much financial return on investment, according to Dr. Jean Peduzzi-Nelson, a spinal cord injury researcher and associate professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. She has collaborated, for instance, with a Portuguese colleague who finds nasal tissue has regenerative potential in the spinal cords of rats, but the procedure cannot be patented.

“It’s very difficult to get a company involved because there is no intellectual property for them to patent,” says Peduzzi-Nelson, an opponent of embryonic stem cell research. “In terms of funding, it would be a lot easier to bring something forward for which you have patent protection.”

What’s more, she says, there’s no profitable product to package and market when a patient can get the tissue she needs from her own body. The implication is that red states may need to rely heavily on government-funded research in lieu of private sector investment.

Still, many red states have their sights set on demonstrating the medical and job-creating promise of adult stem cells. Indiana this year passed a bill to create a stem cell research center even as it banned the use of therapeutic cloning, a procedure sometimes used to create embryos for research. And in August, Kansas State University authorized the creation of the Midwest Institute for Comparative Stem Cell Biology.

“Success breeds success,” says interim director James Coffman. “If you fall behind, you lose competitiveness not just versus embryonic research per se, but in the technology base” that can attract capital investment. Investing now, he says, positions Kansas not only to find therapies and create jobs but also help starve embryonic researchers of the funds they require.

“We expect this will play a role,” Coffman says, “in creating enough of an alternative, combined with other research, that embryonic research will not be necessary.”

MO/RB END RNS