We would like to respond to some of the inaccuracies that were given in the letters of Fr. Will Prospero and Nathan Inks printed in Friday’s CM Life concerning Proposal 2. As researchers in the biomedical sciences, we strongly disagree with their contentions that adult stem cells have proven to be as efficacious as stem cells derived from embryonic tissue. Although adult stem cells have proven to be effective in some circumstances – such as using certain adult-derived stem cells that normally become blood cells to treat some forms of blood-related diseases – they often lack the versatility of embryonic stem cells.

The enhanced ability of embryonic stem cells to develop into the kinds of cells for which adult-derived stem cells are either unavailable or have proven to be ineffective, may provide the key for developing effective treatments for many of the currently untreatable disorders. Although valiant efforts are being made to convert adult-derived stem cells into embryonic-like stem cells, there are still several technical obstacles to overcome before such cells can become clinically viable. Meanwhile, children with juvenile diabetes, quadriplegics immobilized by spinal cord injuries and people suffering from Parkinson’s disease are in desperate need for effective treatments – and many of these people are asking voters to allow scientists in Michigan to conduct research on the therapeutic efficacy of embryonic stem cells.

The second inaccuracy that needs to be addressed is Fr. Propsero’s claim that passage of Proposal 2 would “open the door . to human cloning.” This is factually incorrect, as Article 2, Section 27, of the Proposal clearly states that “Nothing in this section shall alter Michigan’s current prohibition on human cloning.”

Unfortunately, Michigan is one of only five states whose laws are so restrictive that they prevent scientists from developing much-needed embryonic stem cell lines for researching potential therapies, even though we have some of the world’s best medical researchers and institutions. Although our current laws allow fertility clinics to throw away leftover, unused or unusable embryos, it bans couples from donating any of the to-be-discarded embryonic stem cells for potentially life-saving research.

Proposal 2 would simply allow couples to donate those embryonic stem cells that would otherwise be thrown away to be used for potentially life-saving therapeutic research. The claims that this proposal will cost money, would allow the selling of ova or stem cells, would permit reproductive cloning or lead to grotesque experimentation are all false claims designed to misinform and scare the public into voting against the proposal. The simple fact is that saying “no” to Proposal 2 will not save a single embryo – the leftover cells from fertility clinics will continue to be discarded whether or not Proposal 2 passes. Saying “yes” to Proposal 2 would simply allow couples the opportunity to donate the to-be-discarded embryonic stem cells for a more life-affirming purpose.

Psychology professor Gary Dunbar, psychology professor Richard Backs, psychology professor Michael Sandstrom, psychology professor Mark Reilly, biology professor Charles Novitski, biology professor Philip Hertzler, biology chairwoman Jennifer Schisa

E-mail the author: defaultuser