In Sunday’s edition of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Tom Still describes the latest attempt by lawmakers in Wisconsin to place artificial restraints on medical research conducted within the state.  The bill in question, known as AB 214 and Senate Bill 172, would ban any medical research in Wisconsin using cells or tissue derived from aborted or miscarried fetuses.  As usual, what is presented to the public as a simple and uncontroversial legal provision is actually a “trojan horse” that would put a halt to important experimental treatments and also hamper the biomedical industry in the state, all in the name of furthering a religious viewpoint.

As explained in Tom’s piece, it is already against federal law to sell fetal tissue, and this proposed state law is unlikely to deter even one future abortion from taking place.  However, many existing medical products such as vaccines and numerous medical experiments currently underway at the University of Wisconsin and the Medical College all utilize cell lines that were derived from aborted fetuses decades ago.  These cells and tissues were donated for research lawfully, and with the full  consent of the parents, and a large body of scientific advances have been made over the years and continue to be made using these cells.  No purpose would be served in banning future experiments using these cells.

This is not an issue that directly affects stem cell research, although an argument can be made that some adult stem cell research, in particular research using induced pluripotent (or iPS) cells might be considered to have been partially derived using fetal tissue products.  This connection between fetal tissue and adult stem cell research is failry tangential, however.  In my opinion, application of the proposed law to restrict stem cell research appears unlikely.

But the legislation is yet another example of the misguided efforts of some state legislators to use religious criteria in order to classify some types of medical research as “good” and other types of medical research as “bad.”  This sort of legislative interference does two things.  First, it creates an uncertain legal environment that slows research, thereby adding years to the time that sick people have to wait until new treatments become available.  Second, these sorts of legislative pronouncements send a message to biomedical comapanies and academic researchers that they are not welcome in Wisconsin.

I’ll let Tom Still have the last word:

If the bill’s intent is to discourage abortions, it may miss the mark. Only eight UW-Madison researchers out of the hundreds on campus who use fetal cells derived their tissue from aborted fetuses, the campus reports.

In all eight cases, the tissue would have been discarded by abortion clinics if not donated for research. No aborted tissue was bought or sold.

Some lawmakers may also think they’ve found a backdoor way to ban human embryonic stem-cell research, but the bill would likely have the opposite effect.

James Thomson, a pioneer of human embryonic stem-cell research, also is the same UW-Madison scientist who launched the search for alternative methods of creating embryonic stem cells through reverse engineering of human skin and other cells. One of his lines of induced pluripotent stem cells, which are an alternative to embryonic stem cells, can be traced back to fetal lung tissue.

Thomson’s company, Cellular Dynamics International, also is one of the most successful start-ups in Wisconsin, having attracted about $100 million in venture capital so far. This is not the kind of company that should be tempted to move to California.

This is a bill that will hurt Wisconsin’s ability to create and retain tech-based jobs, its research institutions and people everywhere who suffer from diseases and other health conditions.

Let’s not roll back the clock on decades of medical progress.

Tom Still’s complete article can be read here:   http://www.jsonline.com/business/129592398.html