"They say all politics is local, but it's not always the case. What you do in Missouri matters to millions of Americans. Americans like me.", so says Michael J. Fox who has made a commercial to support Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill. McCaskill, who supports embryonic stem cell research, is running to oust incumbent Jim Talent. Jim Talent has not only opposed extending stem cell research, but has also wanted to criminalize it.

As readers of this site know, Missouri is the state where there was some interest to amend their constitution to make transhumansim illegal. Here is a link to the 2006 ballot measures. While there is nothing as sensationalist as what was proposed, there is an amendment to ban human cloning while allowing stem cell research and treatment. It is measure 2 that contains anti-cloning and, presumably, anti-therapeutic cloning language. Here is the language for the limitations and requirements section:

(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.

(2) No human blastocyst may be produced by *fertilization* solely for the purpose of stem cell research.

(3) No stem cells may be taken from a human blastocyst more than fourteen days after cell pision begins; provided, however, that time during which a blastocyst is frozen does not count against the fourteen-day limit.

Cause for concern? Maybe, maybe not. The amendment specifically allows the removal of stem cells from a blastocyst less than 14 days old. The amendment gives the following definitions:

(1) “Blastocyst” means a small mass of cells that results from cell pision, caused either by fertilization or somatic cell nuclear transfer, that has not been implanted in a uterus.

(5) “Human embryonic stem cell research,” also referred to as “early stem cell research,” means any scientific or medical research involving human stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization blastocysts or from somatic cell nuclear transfer. For purposes of this section, human embryonic stem cell research does not include stem cell clinical trials.

(13) “Stem cell” means a cell that can pide multiple times and give rise to specialized cells in the body, and includes but is not limited to the stem cells generally referred to as (i) adult stem cells that are found in some body tissues (including but not limited to adult stem cells derived from adult body tissues and from discarded umbilical cords and placentas), and (ii) embryonic stem cells (including but not limited to stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization blastocysts and from cell reprogramming techniques such as somatic cell nuclear transfer).

This would imply that cloning is allowed, if you harvest the stem cells before the 14 day cut-off. Since there is no reason to make a blastocyst through somatic cell nuclear transfer, the very definition of cloning, with out the intent to either make a human clone, or make a cloned embryo for stem cell research; why would it be allowed to make such a blastocyst in the fine print and banned in the begging of the wording of the amendment? As you can see by my emphasis on requirement 2, only the creation of a blastocyst by the means of fertilization, solely for research, is banned. This would imply that a blastocyst created through somatic cell nuclear transfer could be created for research. In fact, their definition of stem cell, the thing on which research is to be made legal, included the very definition of cloning. There already are ads attacking the amendment by opponents here and here. I'm not sure if the first one was ever aired, but the second one was pulled. There are also pro amendment 2 ads here and here. The first features singer Sheryl Crow and the second is from the International Association of Fire Fighters.

In the fair ballot language, the language that will presumably appear on the ballot, there is no mention of therapeutic cloning; everything is lumped together as "human cloning or attempted cloning". Only by looking at the full text do you see what the bill actually entails. Does not the creation of an embryo via somatic cell nuclear transfer constitute "attempted cloning"? The problem is that it is not clear what the amendment allows or bans, some think it has been cleverly worded by big biotech companies to make it seem like it bans cloning only to really allow it. In fact, not only allow it, but mandate it; there is language forbidding the state from denying embryonic stem cell research of funds. If so, then it would be amusing to see some of the Missouri anti-transhumanist platform co-opted in this way. It is also possible that this apparent loop-hole in the anti-cloning language is being exploited by the anti-embryonic stem cell side, because they know they can't win on a no stem cell research platform. At the end of the fair ballot language we see the following:

"A "no" vote would not ensure that stem cell research permitted under federal law is allowed to be conducted in Missouri and that Missouri patients have access to stem cell therapies and cures permitted under federal law."

This makes it seem that Missouri voters need to pass this to allow potential stem cell cures to be administered to Missouri citizens, and if they don't they will be left out in the cold. That is a powerful incentive to vote yes on amendment 2. Those that oppose embryonic stem cell research need the voters to think, rightly or wrongly, that the amendment secretly allows cloning.

I think that ideally, this early, with this type of technology, we should not out-right ban anything. For all we know, efficacy of treatments, availability of treatments and reduction of rejection issues could force us to use therapeutic cloning in the future. It is not clear that fertility clinics would be able to keep up demand if and when embryonic stem cell treatments are made available to most of the population. Deliberate creation and destruction of embryos (by whatever means) may be the only practical way to cure not just a few people during clinical trials, but cure everyone who is afflicted with a condition that will prove to be responsive to this type of treatment.

I think anyone interested in transhumanist technologies should keep an eye out for any similar developments in your state or country. If you find yourself having to vote on something as poorly worded as this ballot measure, good luck.