In November of 2006, voters in Missouri passed Amendment 2, which gave research facilities in that state the ability to create embryonic stem cells by the method known as somatic cell nucleus transfer (SCNT) in order to search for cures to various diseases.  The vote was very close, 51-49%, and the discussion over that amendment continues.

Lawmakers in Jefferson City have sought to change Amendment 2 in certain areas, specifically defining what they consider to be vague language in the document.  This is something that should have been done before the amendment was placed on the ballot, but the supporters of that language had their reasons for wording the amendment in such a manner.  Here are two examples.

First is the wording regarding cloning.  "For the purposes of this amendment, cloning is defined as the implantation of a blastocyst into a human uterus for the purpose of creating a human being."  That may not be the exact language, but it is very close.  As such, this is misleading.  SCNT is widely regarded as cloning, both by the general public and many in the scientific community itself.  This wording smacks of the definition of "science" when debating evolution v. intelligent design ("ID is not science, because we SAY it isn't science, so evolution is the only scientific method, and should be the only one taught in schools), and is designed to be such.  Dolly the sheep was created by SCNT, and nobody doubts that she was a clone, so the language in this part of the amendment in ingenuous, to say the least.

The second wording is not discussed much, but is actually far worse.  The text of the amendment regarding funding for such research can be read to say that once funding is begun, from whatever source, it CANNOT be stopped by any entity, including legislative bodies.  This was put into the amendment to protect the continued funding of certain research at the University of Missouri-Columbia, but now the amendment extends that protection to private institutions such as the Stowers Institute (a primary backer of the legislation).  Now we see why so much money was spent during the run-up to the election to pass Amendment 2.  Supporters who intend to set up research facilities that depend on public monies wanted to ensure a continuing supply of funding, even if the need for embryonic stem-cells no longer existed.  In essence, people like the Stowers Institute wanted a continuing blank check for their work...and they got it.

The Cold Hard Fact is that this was a terrible amendment as written, and should never have made the ballot, much less been passed into Missouri constitutional law.  Leaving the moral issues aside, as we have done in this entry, the fact is that narrow definitions of words are not what science and research should be about.  Equally, the wording of Amendment 2 can be interpreted to mean that once funding starts, the Amendment ITSELF cannot be repealed, because that would end funding, which is not permissible under the language of the amendment.  Obviously, any law that cannot be repealed is unconstitutional, on both a state and Federal level, and thus Amendment 2 should be revised or repealed forthwith.