Mass. Stem Cell Bills Pass

In a blow to Mass. Governor W. Mitt Romney and a victory for Harvard scientists, the state’s legislative body overwhelmingly approved a bill last week which would allow stem cell research in Massachusetts.

The bill—which officially revises the state’s currently ambiguous legislation on the use of embryos for research—met with a 35-2 Senate approval on Wednesday and a 117-37 House approval on Thursday.

University President Lawrence H. Summers voiced his approval of the decision on Saturday.

“This is a moment when the Legislature, through timely and thoughtful action, is helping making the Commonwealth the global center of the life sciences revolution,” he wrote in a letter to the Boston Globe. “Without an appropriate legislative environment, there is a real risk that major initiatives, such as Harvard’s Stem Cell Institute, which can attract talented students, scientists as well as industry, would be gravely compromised.”

Scientists at the Harvard Stem Cell Institute (HSCI) saw the legislation as “a huge victory for science.”

“I cheered when I heard about the vote in the House,” said George Q. Daley ’82, associate professor of Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology at Harvard Medical School (HMS) and HSCI executive board member.

“This legislation is critical for giving all scientists—not just stem cell biologists—great comfort that this state supports research and biotechnology,” he said.

Leonard I. Zon, president of the International Society for Stem Cell Research and HCSI member, said that, in fact, most people are in favor of stem cell research.

“There is a lot of misinformation in the public domain...if adequately explained, most people are in favor of moving forward,” said Zon, who is also a professor of pediatrics at HMS. “Even among conservative voters, the public supports the research and seems to trust what the scientists tell them—which is probably why the opposition has to resort to propaganda campaigns.”

Both State House and Senate versions of the bill allow for the use of embryonic stem cells obtained from in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics and a cloning process called somatic cell nuclear transfer.

Romney is expected to veto the bill on grounds that he opposes the latter.

Somatic cell nuclear transfer differs from IVF in that it lacks the normal fertilization process of egg and sperm—the egg’s nucleus is removed and replaced with another cell’s genetic material.

According to Daley, stem cells produced this way offer a therapeutic advantage to patients because they are less likely to face immune rejection after transplantation.

Romney said that because somatic cell nuclear transfer creates embryos expressly for research purposes—thereby destroying them—such a technique is unethical and should not be allowed.

“Lofty goals do not justify the creation of life for experimentation or destruction,” Romney wrote in a letter, adding that creation of embryos crosses the boundary of “respect for human life.”

But many ethicists and scientists say that Romney’s line of logic is flawed.

“[Romney] says that he is opposed to the creation of human life for research,” said Dan W. Brock, director of the Division of Medical Ethics at HMS. “That principle which he has enunciated would make him opposed to both somatic cell nuclear transfer and to the use of IVF for non-reproductive purposes.”

Brock added that the embryo’s potential to become a living being should not give them the same rights as a human being.

“You don’t get moral status by just potential,” Brock said. “If Kerry had won the election, then on January 1 he would have been potentially commander-in-chief of the armed forces, but he wouldn’t have had the right to command the armed forces when he just had the potential.”

According to Ann C. Dufresne, communications director for Mass. Senate president Robert E. Travaglini, Romney’s opposition will likely not affect the bill’s passage into law because both the Senate and the House approved the stem cell initiative on a margin in excess of the two-thirds minimum needed to override Romney’s expected veto.

“We’re not terribly concerned...because we are going to override [the veto],” she said.

Dufresne, however, pointed out that the final version of the bill has not been drafted, and said there was one key difference between the Senate and House bills.

Under the House bill, the role of the Department of Public Health (DPH) is not clearly articulated, but under the Senate bill, the DPH plays a specific licensing role.

“A [stem cell] researcher would have to apply for a license, which would be issued by the DPH,” Dufresne said. “Researchers would not be allowed to apply unless they had prior approval by their institutional review board, and most institutions have these.”

A third level of control would lie under a new eight-member stem cell advisory council. The governor would have the power to appoint the commissioner to chair the council and one other member. The other six would be approved by the House and the Senate.

According to Dufresne, a conference committee of three Senate and three House members has been appointed to work out the final version of the bill which will be voted on shortly thereafter.

Once the final bill clears the legislature, Romney will have 10 days to sign or veto it.

-Staff writer Risheng Xu can be reached at xu4@fas.harvard.edu.