Poll supports stem cell research

Listen to this article

More than 70 percent of RBJ Daily Report readers support Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s proposal for New York to provide $100 million in funding for stem cell research that could include embryonic stem cells.
“I fully support all stem cell research—to not only fight neurological disorders but, who knows, maybe one day find a cure for cancer,” wrote Karen Baglin of Harris Interactive Inc.
Fifty-six percent strongly support the proposal, and another 15 percent said they would support it. Ten percent oppose the idea, and 20 percent are strongly opposed.
“I oppose all embryonic stem cell research in the strongest terms possible,” wrote Ted Miller of Berean Business Services.
When asked what they thought of the proposal if it did not allow funds for embryonic stem cell research, the percentage of those in strong support fell dramatically to 29 percent. Thirty-one percent said they would support the proposal, 23 percent oppose it and 17 percent are strongly opposed.
Nearly 600 people took part in the poll, which was conducted Feb. 12 and 13, and roughly 100 submitted comments. (To read some of them, see below.)
Here are the detailed results to this week’s poll questions:

What is your opinion of Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s proposal for New York to provide $100 million in funding for stem cell research that could include embryonic stem cells?
56% Strong support
15% Support
10% Oppose
20% Strongly oppose

What would be your opinion of Gov. Spitzer’s proposal for New York to provide $100 million in funding for stem cell research—if it did not allow funds for embryonic stem cell research?
29% Strongly support
31% Support
23% Oppose
17% Strongly oppose

To take part in the next Snap Poll, sign up for the free Daily Report at www.rbjdaily.com/dailyform.htm.

Here are some of the respondents’ comments:

While I am not opposed to stem cell research, I am opposed to having the states fund it. It is a national issue and should be funded by the federal government. It should also have federal oversight. Otherwise there will be 50 different plans and little, if any, chance for truly focused effort.
—Rick Bradley

Unfortunately, science often takes a back seat when emotional issues are present. Let’s hope we are beyond that in New York State.
—Al Schnucker, Schnucker Packaging Inc.

We should “unshackle” our scientists and researchers to meet the demands and opportunities of the 21st century.
—Gary Rogers, Dock Hardware

This is a vital proposal that will help many individuals.
—Rich Myers

I strongly support stem cell research, but this should be done by the private sector with slight government oversight to make sure people are not getting hurt.
—Bob Freese

Not only is the use of embryonic stem cells immoral, there is no sustainable evidence that embryonic stem cells offer any benefit over adult stem cells. In addition, adult stem cells are much easier and more cost effective to obtain. I oppose all embryonic stem cell research in the strongest terms possible. All human life is valuable to the Lord, and human life clearly begins at conception. While I support the University of Rochester’s many contributions to the local and medical community, I will reconsider such support if they continue to support such activities.
—Ted Miller, Berean Business Services

New Yorkers are under the misconception that the state government has the capacity to make good business investments—this, despite decades of evidence to the contrary. I don’t oppose stem cell research. I just wish New Yorkers would wake up and see this for what it is: money to enrich people and institutions with connections at the expense of us who pay the taxes. If this sounds cynical, consider the amount: $100 million. Why not $97 million or $130 million? I believe $100 million is just an impressive guess, based on political perceptions, on how much New Yorkers can be bilked on this issue.
—Steve Vaughn

I pray every day that our “political” body will embrace the sciences to allow for “life”! My 9-year-old grandson has Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, and the progression of this horrific neuromuscular disease has him in a wheelchair and has weakened him to the point where all the normal daily tasks require assistance. Before this disease renders him completely unable to move and his life is taken when others are just starting their independent journey, I beg the community to allow the sciences to help! The way I look at it is the Lord provided the human race with the intelligence to create such a possibility. It is the only right thing to do!
—Marlene Fumia, director of customer relations, Infor

I am a strong supporter since my 8-year-old son has Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and this could save his life and others like him.
—Tricia Wright

You miss the most important part of the issue: Where is the $100 million coming from? Return the $100 million to the taxpayers of New York. We are among the highest taxed. Let free enterprise fund the research. That is what our country is founded on. I oppose any funding, private or public, for embryonic stem cell research, and fully endorse private funding for all other stem cell research.
—Steve Taylor, president/CEO, North American Filter Corp.

The harvesting of embryonic stem cells via the killing of innocent fetuses is repugnant. There are other options available via adult stem cells. The abortion lobby should stop hiding behind the mask of research to forward their brutal cause. All is not justified in the name of science.
—Bill Simpson

This research is extremely important, not just for our nation but for the world. For New York State to take a lead role will help NYS recruit and retain some of the world’s leading researchers, which will be especially beneficial for the University of Rochester Medical Center.
—Howie Jacobson, managing partner, Dixon Schwabl Advertising

We need stem cell research to help us fight diseases. Since embryonic cells have always just been discarded, I think it’s a perfect way to “recycle life” to fight disease. I fully support all stem cell research—to not only fight neurological disorders but, who knows, maybe one day find a cure for cancer.
—Karen Baglin, Harris Interactive

Stem cell research is going to move forward and is needed. While I’m concerned with use/misuse of embryonic cells, I favor state and/or federal funding and oversight over private funding and oversight.
—Pat Fitzpatrick

Gov. Spitzer has a unique opportunity for an initiative that would not only create a nucleation of cutting edge research to spur economic growth in New York State, but could emphasize areas of stem cell research such as adult stem cell therapies that have real proven success and greater potential for rapid return, thus diverging from popular “research of the day” initiatives that are years from bearing fruit and currently are riddled with momentous scientific, political and ethical barriers.
—Joel Wojciechowski, director of preclinical development, StemCapture

The potential for many scientific breakthroughs, medical cures, symptomological reversals of the disease process are often cited for the usage of the embryonic stem cells by the proponents of it. The critics cite that proverbial slippery slope of the well-known human capacity for moral bankruptcy, ethical disenfranchisement, capitalization of the vulnerable and those most easily exploited. The science and technologies and their respective potential for good should not be suppressed simply because of human nature. If that was the case, the cavemen would have outlawed fire.
—Jeffrey Baglin

If we want to maintain our edge in research we need to be researchers, probing the unknown. Let’s not burden research with ethics and morals before we have the facts established. Stem cell research is being and will be done—outside the United States if we continue to refuse funding. It reminds me of the science 400 years ago when the Catholic Church condemned the notables like Galileo who made significant breakthroughs.
—Art Maurer, A.W. Maurer Consulting

First, embryonic is a direct link to the human body. Why go around the fence with animal stem cells when you can go directly over it? Second, adult cells are too far developed, whereas embryonic stems are ideal. For anyone who suffers from a chronic disease process knows, time is everything and generally too short. Third, $100 million could help a lot of situations in this state right now. Could it be put to better use by vote? Now THAT is a novel idea!
—R. Thompson

Residents in New York are overtaxed. If this research is viable, private sources will fund it.
—Dr. John Walker, JW International Enterprises

Stem cell research fits well with our community’s competencies and will be a boost to our economy. As well as adding jobs to the local area, this research will help retain our young talent.
—Kathy Nixon, Rundel Library Foundation

Adult stem cells can provide the benefits of stem cell research without entering the moral and ethical ground of embryonic stem cells. For the sake of those who would benefit from stem cell research as well as for the unborn who would suffer in the pursuit of embryonic stem cells, the state should concentrate its funding and research on adult stem cells. Stem cells from the placenta and umbilical cord have much to offer, too, in addition to the fact that they do not violate ethical and moral standards.
—Michael Patella, OSB, Saint John’s University

It is important that we use every means available to us to find cures for many diseases.
—Patricia Magin

Almost any way Rochester can get more state money is good for Rochester. For many years New York has been a hub of medical research. Our biggest employer is the U of R, and they stand to benefit even more from any new state money ear-marked for medical research. If we are ever to be an innovation hub again, we will have to trade on our medical, technical and service legacies: Kodak, Xerox, Wegmans, Paychex and now the U of R. Eliot, bring it on!
—Clifford Jacobson, WebHomeUSA

Why is the state so concerned with medicine? Will we be the stem cell capital of the U.S.? Is that how we are to generate economic growth? Or did we just get a jolt of altruism? Let’s just make it a friendlier environment to do business and research—less encumbered, less regulated, less taxed—and let people and companies keep some of the money they make. And then they will come here to make it, stem cell and all.
—Myron Kowal, president, Response Care Inc.

It is almost criminal that both federal and state governments are not maximizing investment into this promising technology while millions of people suffer from potentially curable ailments. Couple that with the fact that the USA is giving away its technological advantage to Europe and the Far East, and you have to wonder what our government’s long-range plans to support the economy are?
—Joseph Lancaster, president, Navalis Co. Inc.

Both of my sons are on the autism spectrum and my oldest son also has Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. Even if stem cell research does not cure these diseases any research can only have positive results because findings can be used to at least improve the quality of life for patients and their families. The gene that causes DMD was discovered in 1986. More progress has been made in treating DMD in that 21 years than in all the years previous since DMD was first documented. Stem cell research can only add to that progress. There are ethical ways to pursue stem cell research. It would behoove us to pursue them.
—Camille Accorso, Rochester

The focus should be on non-embryonic stem cell research. There is ample evidence that they can provide all of the benefits that embryonic stem cells do. It may be more difficult, but cures that will not require moral dilemmas are well worth it. I am a professional scientist taking this position.
—Rich Smerbeck

(c) 2007 Rochester Business Journal. Obtain permission to
reprint this article.