Stem cell amendment debate affects health care research, local economy

Beyond its effect on Missourians’ access to cures for diseases, a constitutional amendment protecting early human stem-cell research has drawn support as a powerful economic-development tool.

Missouri, for most of this decade, has tried to hitch its job-creation wagon to the broader life sciences, which contribute about $24 billion a year to the state’s economy. But immediate evidence of what Amendment 2 would protect is scarce.

The Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City, a prime mover behind the amendment, has no embryonic human stem-cell research taking place. Washington University has only one research team with access to federally approved stem-cell lines.

At the University of Missouri-Columbia, biochemist Michael Roberts has the lone project, which focuses on greater understanding of what causes human miscarriages.

With so little basic research in the field, the list of spinoff companies, venture-capital opportunities and other at-risk business likewise is scarce or nonexistent.

At issue instead is the long-term pall that failure of Amendment 2 would cast over the state and its academic communities — and eventually its job-creation potential, supporters say. Already, Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois has invited Missouri stem-cell researchers and biotech companies to relocate there and take advantage of public funding.

The national news coverage of the stem-cell debate “has fed perceptions” that Missouri “should be viewed with caution” by scientists, said John Gardner, the MU vice president for research and economic development.

Jake Halliday, who heads the new Life Sciences Incubator for spin-off companies in Columbia that will break ground next spring, worries about the “negative branding” that would take hold regarding Missouri’s reputation as the site for scientific work if the amendment fails.

Because of fears about the political climate, similar problems spurred the movement by Stowers to change the constitution after it was unable to lure two Harvard researchers to Missouri. The possibility of doubling the size of the current Stowers campus hangs in the balance on the fate of Amendment 2.

The failure of Amendment 2 would create holes in an intertwined mix of academia, research and business development at the medical school in Columbia.

“The School of Medicine is on a trajectory right now of rebuilding its research base,” Gardner said.

The constitutional amendment on November’s ballot essentially would block future legislative attempts to curtail embryonic stem-cell research, which have surfaced the past two years.

Unlike adult stem-cell research, the embryonic version generally is expected to have more versatile uses for treating an array of debilitating conditions, although currently it is less developed.

Commercial applications likely won’t emerge for several years.
An immediate example of what Amendment 2 could prevent surfaced in late September, when Gov. Matt Blunt’s proposal to use Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority funds for university construction projects, primarily biotech, was amended to prohibit their use for early stem-cell research. Blunt resisted the change but accepted it in order to help guarantee legislative approval of the MOHELA deal in 2007.

Amendment 2 could block restrictions on the new Health Sciences Research and Education Center at the university’s Columbia campus, which would get about half its construction funding from MOHELA. The facility would employ 70 lead scientists and more than 500 additional staff with $40 million in direct funding. Another 1,600 jobs and $80 million in indirect income could result.

Elson Floyd, the UM system president, promised a legal analysis of the MOHELA agreement language but has delayed it until after the November public vote on Amendment 2.

The MOHELA project underlies much of the support structure for biotech projects at MU-Columbia and other public universities across the state.
Besides the health sciences center, the MOHELA package includes funds for the incubation center on South Providence Road and for Discovery Ridge, a research park for more mature companies located on a university farm along Highway 63 between Columbia and Jefferson City.

Despite its stake in Amendment 2’s outcome, MU has no official position on the measure.

Although MU belonged to the Missouri Coalition for Life Saving Cures before that group began circulating petitions to place the amendment on the ballot, the university board of curators has taken no position on Amendment 2.

But the Columbia Chamber of Commerce is among the few organizations that have endorsed the amendment, citing its importance to MU’s growth and regional economic development.

Support for Amendment 2 has declined as the debate has reached new heights, falling from 64 percent in January to 58 percent in August, according to St. Louis Post-Dispatch polls.

The Stowers family, the benefactors of the Kansas City research center, has provided more than $15 million to back the campaign.

Through Oct. 15, the Missouri Coalition for Life Saving Cures had raised $28.7 million, with $24.6 million coming from James and Virginia Stowers, the founders of the Kansas City Stowers Institute for Medical Research.

The amounts swamp the resources of the Missourians Against Human Cloning, the main Amendment 2 opponent, which had raised $467,000 by Oct. 15. The most recent report includes $100,000 donated by the Missouri Catholic Conference, but other church-based spending on the measure is likely unreported. The opponent organizations — largely drawn from the well-established ranks of anti-abortion forces — had hoped to raise $3 million for advertising to defeat the plan.