New Jersey voters rejected a plan that would have borrowed $450 million for stem-cell research, defeating the statewide ballot initiative 53,785 to 46,069.
Supporters of the stem-cell initiative, which would have, among other things, funded the construction of research centers and provided grants to scientists, said that while they were disappointed with the result of Tuesday’s vote, publicly funded research will continue, with Gov. Jon Corzine having already set aside about $10 million, according to Ronald Heymann, vice president of the group New Jersey Citizens Coalition for Cures, a strong proponent of stem-cell research. Heymann cited low voter turnout, as well as New Jersey voters’ concerns over the state’s financial future, as factors in the measure’s defeat.
“I think that the decision at the polls on Tuesday was really a backlash as to the taxing problems, the taxpayer issues, in New Jersey. I really don’t think it was anything more than that,” said Heymann.
“I hope this issue will come back with a larger turnout. It was a disappointing turnout at the polls; the numbers were staggeringly low,” he added later.
The group Americans for Prosperity, which had mounted a strong campaign against the initiative, saw the defeat of the stem-cell measure as a victory. Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan, the executive director of the fiscally conservative organization’s New Jersey branch, said he believes that biomedical research of this nature should not be in the hands of the public sector, that it should instead be left to private business. The group had come out against the initiative over hesitance to add to the state’s already multibillion dollar debt load, though Lonegan noted that the ballot question’s defeat was also helped by people who are morally opposed to embryonic stem-cell research.
“I think it was both [fiscal and moral opposition], and I think we needed a coalition for both, together, to win, and that’s what we did. People recognized that this type of scientific research and development should not be in the hands of government but the private sector. I don’t want government to engage in this type of biomedical research, you know, in a state that can’t manage its way out of a paper bag. I don’t trust them to do biomedical research,” said Lonegan.
While voters had rejected the stem-cell measure on – according to Lonegan – fiscal grounds, they approved another initiative that would borrow $200 million for open space funding. Lonegan said that in this case, proponents simply fought harder, but he said the votes were connected to political machines.
“The pro side did a little more work, and I didn’t have enough resources to do as much as I wanted on that ballot question,” said Lonegan.
Marie Tasy, the executive director of New Jersey Right to Life, said that no one, single factor accounted for the initiative’s defeat, but said that she felt many reports have been trying to downplay the significance of moral opposition to embryonic stem-cell research.
“I don’t think it was one, but I think there was a significant number of people concerned about the moral aspects, absolutely, and some of the media trying to downplay that, saying it was fiscal, but there were a lot of people concerned with the moral aspects,” said Tasy.
Heymann said that it was still too early to determine where stem-cell research in New Jersey can go from here, though he said there were several possibilities that could be explored, such as public-private partnerships or collaboration with state universities such as Rutgers. Groups, he said, will have to see “when the dust settles.” Brendan Gilfillan, a spokesman for the governor’s office, agreed with this assessment, saying that the governor, who strongly supported the measure, will see what other options are available.
Embryonic stem cells are cells that have not yet been assigned a specific function. With the proper treatment, they can be coaxed into becoming almost any type of tissue. Many believe that the cells can be used for treatments for a variety of maladies, though the ones most often touted are for Alzheimer’s disease, where people hope that brain tissue can be regenerated, and spinal cord injures, where it is thought they might allow paralyzed people to walk again.
The controversy comes from the fact that many stem-cell lines originate from fertilized human embryos, which must be destroyed in order to harvest the stem cells. The embryos mostly come from fertility labs, left over from in-vitro fertilization. Opponents of embryonic stem-cell research say that the destruction of the fertilized embryo for its stem cells is morally wrong and that there are other types of stem cells, such as umbilical and amniotic, that can be harvested and used. Proponents say that the frozen embryos will either sit in the freezer or be destroyed anyway, and that embryonic stem cells are the most versatile of stem cell groups and provide the most potential for finding cures to diseases