Actually, this is incorrect. Most credible scientists, including adult-stem-cell researchers, say both types of research must continue.

Chief among these scientists is Dr. James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who first isolated human embryonic stem cells in 1998.

In 2007, Dr. Thompson announced he had successfully manipulated adult stem cells to behave similarly to embryonic stem cells. These so-called induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells are a major advancement in stem cell research -- but they don’t mean scientists should abandon embryonic stem cell research, Thompson and other say.

Two studies announced in February 2010 demonstrate that the researchers are right. In one of the studies, scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison found that iPS cells “differentiate less efficiently and faithfully than their embryonic counterparts.” In the other study, scientists at Advanced Cell Technology in Massachusetts found that iPS cells “age and die abnormally.” Researchers from both studies hope to overcome these obstacles.

Certainly, the world has seen some wonderful advances lately involving adult stem cell research. Perhaps the most exciting was the November 2008 transplant of a woman’s windpipe in Spain. Unfortunately, adult stem cell research hasn’t yielded as many dramatic results as opponents of embryonic stem cell research would have you believe. How else does one explain the rising rates of cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and numerous other diseases?

The Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures also believes this isn’t an either/or situation. We support both adult and embryonic stem cell research and are equally excited about another recent advancement, the direct reprogramming of cells within diabetic mice that resulted in them being able to produce insulin. This advancement, announced in August 2008 at the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, was built on earlier successes from embryonic stem cell research.

That’s why embryonic stem cell research is strongly supported by an overwhelming majority of medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, as well as disease and patient advocacy groups, including the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.

It only makes sense that the more avenues of research we pursue, the more likely we are to find cures for our friends and loved ones.

CORRECT! Like adult stem cell research, embryonic stem cell research does not involve abortion in any way.

The cells used in both types of research are handled in labs and are never implanted in a womb.

Most embryonic stem cells come from leftover embryos at fertility clinics that otherwise would be discarded and destroyed. Couples that have successfully conceived donate the embryos to medical researchers. They, like us, think it’s unfortunate to throw away stem cells that might help people suffering from Parkinson’s, diabetes, spinal cord injuries or other afflictions.

Embryonic stem cells can also be produced with Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT), a process that uses a patient’s own cells and an unfertilized human egg. SCNT has the added advantage of producing stem cells that will automatically match the patient’s genetic makeup and avoid the problem of immune system rejection. Scientists are also working on creating a new type of cell, the induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cell, from patients’ own cells that also match individual patient’s genetic makeup.

CORRECT! You might be surprised to learn that some of the most vocal pro-life advocates in our state and nation support embryonic stem cell research.

They include Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, and former Sen. Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican who is also a medical doctor. Sen. Hatch has said it is precisely his pro-life values that require him to support research aimed at ending the suffering of men, women and children.

In Missouri, supporters of embryonic stem cell research include former U.S. Sen. John Danforth and former Gov. Matt Blunt, both Republicans and both strongly pro-life.

All of these public officials are people of faith. Former Sen. Danforth is an ordained Episcopal priest; former Gov. Blunt attends a Baptist church in Springfield. Sen. Hatch is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and former Sen. Frist is a Presbyterian.

CORRECT! State law already prohibits public funding for human cloning.

Specifically, state statute 1.217, RSMo. prohibits the use of public funds for human cloning.

So why ban what’s already banned? Since 2006, when voters approved the Missouri Cell Amendment, opponents of stem cell research have suggested that their true intent is to limit or repeal the rights and guarantees established by the amendment:

• Missouri patients now have the right to have their diseases and injuries treated with any stem cell cures that are allowed by federal law and available to other Americans.

• Missouri medical institutions have the right to provide and help find new stem cell cures.
• Clear ethical boundaries and oversight requirements are now in place for stem cell research conducted in Missouri, including a strict ban on any attempt to clone a human being.
  

Contrary to the rhetoric of some stem cell opponents, the Stem Cell Amendment did nothing to change the Missouri Legislature’s constitutional ability to fund, or not fund, any project it chooses.

CORRECT! The Missouri Stem Cell Amendment, often called Amendment 2 during the 2006 campaign, bans the cloning of human beings.

In fact, anyone who even attempts to clone a human being in Missouri faces a possible punishment of 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, thanks to the Stem Cell Amendment, which Missouri voters approved in 2006. Our state is one of only a handful to enact such a ban.

To learn more about the Missouri Stem Cell Amendment and its ban on human cloning, click here.

Opponents of embryonic stem cell research often try to cloud the issue by not differentiating between "therapeutic cloning" and "reproductive cloning."

The medical purpose of therapeutic cloning is to make lifesaving stem cells, not babies. It’s called therapeutic cloning because it involves copying, or cloning, genetic material from a patient's cell to make lifesaving stem cells that match the patient's genetic makeup and avoid transplant rejection problems. Scientists already clone cells and genes for a number of existing medical purposes, such as developing new therapeutic drugs, creating insulin and replacing the skin of burn victims.

"Reproductive cloning," also referred to as "human cloning" or "cloning a human being," has never been done and may not even be scientifically possible. It would involve creating a "duplicate" human being by implanting a cloned embryo into a woman's uterus to make a baby.

The Missouri Stem Cell Amendment specifically bans reproductive cloning. It allows only therapeutic cloning -- that is, the creation of stem cells in lab dishes. It prohibits any attempt to clone a human being.