While some University employees think New Jersey voters will support the state borrowing $450 million for stem cell research in the Nov. 6 referendum, other advocates suspect voters may be misinformed about what exactly the bill contains.
New Jersey Right to Life says the bill allows for human cloning and economic benefits are overly speculative. Advocates for the bill contend a recent Rutgers study proves the research will save New Jersey money in the long run, and there is no human cloning involved.
"We're faced with these powerful forces providing misleading information to the public," said Professor Wise Young, a neuroscientist and spinal injury researcher who supports the stem cell bill. "The bond bill actually forbids the cloning of fetuses. And a lot of people don't realize this, talking about baby factories and so forth."
A recent update of a University study by Professor Joseph J. Seneca, an economist, said state health care costs could be reduced by $11.3 billion if and when stem cell therapies become available.
A July Quinnipiac University poll found 71 percent of New Jersey voters support embryonic stem cell research.
But when New Jerseyans were asked if they supported the state initiative to borrow $450 million for stem cell research, the total residents in favor added up to a much smaller 52 percent.
Young said he fears false information is circulating around about the bill's content. His interpretation is that the bill does allow for the cloning of cells - but cells are not organisms, and they are not defined as human beings.
New Jersey Right to Life Executive Director Marie Tasy said government officials are not being transparent about what the bill entails.
"It's a stealth effort to deceive the voters, as to what type of research they're doing with their tax dollars," Tasy said.
The bill, she said, will allow researchers to clone humans, although they insist the bill forbids it. A passage in the bill allows for "somatic cell nuclear transfer." This procedure was the same procedure used to clone Dolly the sheep, she said.
In September, NJRL appealed to courts, entreating the state to stop printing ballots, as Tasy said the language used on the ballot misled voters: the word "cloning" was not mentioned.
The court did not rule in their favor, but they are in the process of appealing.
Tasy said she hopes they can push the issue through before the polling day on Nov. 6, but if the court appeal fails and the bill pulls through the referendum, NJRL will continue to try to get the referendum invalidated.
"We feel people have a right to know and it's too important of an issue for voters," Tasy said. "It is interfering with the democratic process when you're not disclosing information."
Tasy also said New Jersey already is in too much debt, and the amount of money spent would be too much of a burden for the state. Also, any profits gained from the stem cell research will be funneled right back into the research fund.
Tasy believes the supposed economic benefits are highly speculative. Since a University professor performed the economic study and Rutgers might receive funding for research with the construction of the new Stem Cell Institute, Tasy feels a conflict of interest exists. The University stands to benefit greatly from the bill, she said.
But Young, the advocate for the stem cell research bill, said Tasy is distorting the facts.
"There's all these scare stories coming out," Young said.
Young said according to calculations he'd made, the bill will not cost residents that much at all. Assuming the bond will have a 5 percent interest rate and there is around 8.7 million residents in New Jersey, Young estimates the cost will amount to $1.42 per resident every year on average. He considers the cost to be an insignificant amount for the average person.
"It's not going to break the bank of anybody," Young said.
The state does not have any concrete figures as of yet.
"I believe it's extremely hard to speculate the cost to taxpayers in the long run," said Tom Vincz, the spokesperson for the state treasury. "But the state would get return on money invested by private industry."
But Young said stem cell advocates like him lack the political savvy to get their viewpoints across, while groups like NJRL are efficient at communicating to the general public and government.
"We're politically naive," Young said. "We don't know how to do this, but these people have put radio and TV ads out. It's in their newsletters," he said. "We don't have the experience to counter this onslaught."
Young said New Jersey needs the bill to pass in order to attract the top scientists in the world.
The health therapeutic industry is heavily concentrated in New Jersey, Young said. If New Jersey residents support the initiative, the industries will be compelled to stay in state for research.
"New Jersey cannot afford to let this opportunity go," Young said. "If New Jersey doesn't have this, the industry will go elsewhere. That is a cost that is not factored into any economic analysis, and it's very significant. If New Jersey does not stay in forefront, it will lose the therapeutic industry."
Young said New York already beat New Jersey to the punch, having passed a recent a $650 million bill to support stem cell research.
"They're going to attract scientists away from New Jersey," he said.
New Jersey was the first in the state nation to fund stem cell research in 2004, Young said, but now a number of states are outrunning New Jersey.
In addition to New York's $650 million bill to support stem cell research, Young said California is spending more than $3 billion and Connecticut is spending $100 million.
Young said the elections of Nov. 6 are not national elections, so voter turnout will be low.
Whichever side can rally the most voters to their cause might therefore win, Young said, even if there is a majority of New Jersey residents who support it.
Due to the misinformation out there, Young said, there is a chance the bond bill will fall, and New Jersey will most likely not have this opportunity again.
But Young said he is more worried that the bill won't pass by a wide margin - say a two-point rather than a 25-point margin.
Passing the initiative by a small margin would send the message to the rest of the nation that New Jerseyans are shaky on their resolve to harbor stem cell research.
"It will haunt us if we just squeak by," Young said.
Be the first to comment on this article!