State May Allow Stem Cell Research

If passed, a bill currently in front of the Massachusetts State Legislature could definitively legalize stem cell research in the state.

As various legislators hammer out the moral and scientific implications of stem cell research, researchers at Harvard’s Stem Cell Institute eagerly await the bill’s passage, which would ultimately help the Institute acquire funding and enhance future experiments.

A bill introduced last month by Senate President Robert Travaglini would clarify existing state law and make stem cell research explicitly legal in Massachusetts.

Currently, the law requires researchers to receive permission from their respective district attorneys to experiment with stem cells.

The bill would also ban human reproductive cloning, prohibit the sale of human embryos, and oversee research through the creation of a “duly appointed Institutional Review Board.”

Democrats have emphasized the importance of the legislation. Travaglini has said, through a spokeswoman, that the bill is “about saving lives, first and foremost.”

Travaglini has also said he does not believe that future generations should have to suffer from diseases their grandparents faced if technology exists to prevent these diseases.

He has emphasized that Massachusetts should take advantage of its research institutes in order to stay on a competitive level with other states, such as California, which has already set aside $3 billion for stem cell research.

But the bill, at present, is not guaranteed passage. Governor W. Mitt Romney sent a letter to Travaglini in early February citing moral justifications for his opposition to the creation of new embryos for research purposes. Romney wrote that “respect for human life is a fundamental element of civilized society” and that “lofty goals do not justify the creation of life for experimentation and destruction.”

House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi predicted that the bill would be on Romney’s desk by the end of the month, according to Kim Haberlin, a spokeswoman from DiMasi’s office.

Charles Jennings, Executive Director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, noted that a failure to pass the bill would not spell the end of the Institute, which could still apply for permission to conduct research from the District Attorney’s Office.

But Jennings said the bill’s passage would greatly enhance the Institute’s ability to do research to secure more funding.

The Institute, which was created last April, is made up of roughly 100 researchers from Harvard and area teacher’s hospitals, the Associated Press reported last week. In the near future, it hopes to have its own centralized site and laboratory facilities.

Harvard is currently raising funds for the Institute, and has indicated that it is a “high priority,” Jennings said.

“The passage of this bill, especially with political controversy and lack of support from the federal government, would be a strong statement that Massachusetts is a supportive and encouraging environment to conduct this type of research,” Jennings said.

Although Romney has declined to say whether he will veto the bill, Ann Dufresne, a spokeswoman from Travaglini’s office, said Friday that Travaglini “feels that the bar has been raised.”

On Wednesday, Democratic leaders promised they would act quickly to support the bill. The Associated Press reported that Travaglini predicted the bill would have the two-thirds support necessary for passing the bill over the Governor’s veto, but has since revised his statements, saying he meant only the State Senate would have that majority.

Dufresne, his spokeswoman, clarified further on Friday, telling The Crimson that such overrides normally originate in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. She said she did not have any knowledge of the House’s vote on the issue.

Detractors criticized the Democrats’ Wednesday statements in support of quick passage of the bill.

Republican Minority Leader in theHouse of Representatives Brad Jones criticized the Democratic leadership for what he called a “rush” to push the bill through the legislature, the Associated Press reported. He added that lawmakers needed time to gain knowledge of the issues.

But Democratic leaders disagreed with this assessment of the situation. Dufresne said that the three months that will have passed by the time the vote comes to the floor is “time adequate for education” on the subject. Haberlin denied that the process has been rushed, emphasizing that “the priority is to get it right.”