FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, January 26, 2010 

NEW POLL: South Dakotans Favor Repealing Stem Cell
Research Ban by 16-point margin.  
Data Indicates Strong Public Support for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Sioux Falls, SD – On Tuesday, January 26th, South Dakotans for Lifesaving Cures released results from a state-wide poll commissioned by the group that found strong public support for repealing the state’s ban on embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).  Complete details from the poll are included below. 

“This poll confirms our belief that there is strong public support for repealing the prohibition against stem cell research in South Dakota,” said Dave Volk, co-chair of South Dakotans for Lifesaving Cures.  “Since the ban was passed in 2000, opponents of ESCR have continuously spread misinformation about the process.  Despite those efforts, South Dakotans still support this ethical research by a wide margin because of its potential to find better treatments and cures for chronic illnesses that affect thousands in our state.” 

Tomorrow morning, the Senate Health and Human Services Committee is expected to consider SB 74, a bill that would repeal South Dakota’s restrictive prohibition against ESCR and establish strict ethical guidelines to govern this research.  If passed in its current form, SB 74 would permit research in South Dakota on cells from leftover embryos that were produced for in vitro fertilization, and would otherwise be discarded. 

Full text of the bill is available at: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2010/Bill.aspx?File=SB74P.htm

RMA Research conducted four hundred surveys from December 18th, 2009 through December 21st, 2009.  These surveys were conducted over 3 days using a proactive dialing method and a Random B sampling technique.  The population for this study consisted of registered voters in the state of South Dakota who were randomly selected and randomly polled.  The sampling margin of error is ±4.5% at a 95% confidence level.

Embryonic stem cell research is currently banned in South Dakota.  Do you support or oppose changing South Dakota’s law to allow embryonic stem cell research in the state?

Support – 47%
Oppose – 31%
Unsure – 22%

Jon Walker
Argus Leader
November 22, 2009

Two opposing sides are staking out their ground in a fight over stem-cell science in South Dakota, with one group now saying it might take its case to the Legislature instead of to voters in an election.

South Dakotans for Lifesaving Cures will decide by early December whether to ask lawmakers in January to overturn the state's ban on embryonic stem cell research.

"We'll make an announcement shortly after Thanksgiving," spokesman Nathan Peterson of Sioux Falls said.

The group has been collecting signatures to put the matter on the general election ballot in fall 2010. Peterson would not give specific reasons on the possible change of direction except to say planners are considering a number of factors.

"It depends how quickly we could see a change in the law and which option has more chance of success," he said.

Another newly formed group, Coalition for Cures Not Cloning, is seeking to build momentum to preserve the ban. David Prentice, a senior fellow for life sciences at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., visited South Dakota this week to defend the laws.

Prentice said changing the law to allow embryonic stem cell research would be wrong both for scientific and moral reasons.

"It's unethical to use human life for experiments. I don't think the human body should be used as raw materials or experimental materials," he said.

Both sides agree on the merits of using adult stem cells to research cures and treatments for conditions ranging from diabetes and heart disease. Adult stem cells come from bone marrow and other organs in children and adults.

They disagree on using stem cells from embryos, the microscopic balls of cells from donated eggs that are fertilized in a lab, often to help a couple having difficulty with conception. Peterson said unused embryos should go to research rather than be thrown away. Prentice said they are human life.

Both spokesmen played down any parallels between stem cells and abortion, but voters already see another political season with South Dakota confronting the issue of the origin of life.

"Abortion's legal. It's the same thing. If they can cure diseases, go for it," said Micah Hagen, 17, a Lincoln High School junior.

Robert Koller, 24, a software developer in Sioux Falls, hopes the ban will stay in force.

"You have to ask a question of when does life begin," he said. "I would hope it would not come down to using human embryos for that kind of research."

The Legislature banned embryonic stem cell research in 2000 and banned human cloning in 2004. Voters in 2006 and 2008 upheld the right to abortion. An attempt to overturn the ban on embryonic stem cell research was defeated this year in the state Senate.

Koller said it's baffling that the state politically upholds abortion but not embryonic research, an issue with less complex personal attachment.

"My guess is it's easier to sell," he said of using embryos, although he opposes both it and abortion.

Prentice, 53, was a professor for 20 years, teaching at Indiana State University and the Indiana University medical school. He often is connected to a statement that adult stem cells have led to 72 cures, but he said Thursday that is a misquote. Adult stem cells have improved treatment but not provided full cures in most of those cases, he said.

"It's working now. I think we ought to be pouring all research into adult stem cells, helping patients now," he said.

Embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, are an unknown quantity with lab behavior that's difficult to predict, he said. Demand would exceed supply, requiring a state to relax restrictions on their use just to satisfy the needs of research, he said.

"If you're going to start to push the ethical envelope, there is no end to it," Prentice said.

Peterson said a couple in fertility treatment should have the option to donate unused embryos to science.

"We're working to refine the language on the bill. One thing that would be included would be a restriction to take cells from embryos used for invitro fertilization that otherwise would be discarded," he said. "There wouldn't be any eggs fertilized solely for the purpose of research."