LANSING -- A recent study on the benefits of in-state embryonic stem cell research is fueling new debate over Proposition 2 on the state's November election ballot.
The referendum has triggered a battle between supporters and opponents of the proposal, which would prevent Michigan from restricting the research beyond federal regulations. It would allow for the destruction of human embryos and the donation of excess embryos for medical research in Michigan.
But as the opposing groups rattle sabers over the study's findings, independent experts have stepped in raising questions of their own.
The study by Wayne State University economics Professor Allen Goodman concludes that lifting the ban could save the state tens of millions of dollars annually, create biotech jobs and provide relief for 770,000 Michigan residents with spinal injuries, Parkinson's disease and a slew of other debilitating illnesses.
The study attracted media attention and garnered praise from Michigan Citizens for Embryonic Stem Cell Research (MCSCR), a pro-embryonic stem cell research group that does not back specific ballots because its nonprofit status. MCSCR Executive Director Marcia Baum lauded the study for being an important educational resource for voters.
In Goodman's paper, he calculated Michigan would save $80 million per year by reducing health care costs by 1 percent. In theory, those savings would come about if Michigan repealed the ban, if in-state researchers then discovered cures to diseases including Lou Gehrig's, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's and if those cures were used to treat 770,000 ill Michigan residents.
But critics like Michael Craw, a political science professor at Michigan State University, challenge those findings.
"It's an unfair and certainly ambiguous analysis," Craw said. "It's really not supported by data."
Craw took issue with the how the study measured economic benefits, specifically on estimates that health costs would fall by 1 percent on a treatment that doesn't yet exist.
He said the 1 percent figure is misleading.
"It only sounds impressive because he applies 1 percent to a really big number," Craw said.
Goodman said he used the 1 percent figure because "it was a number to put in so that we could calculate a potential impact."
While the debate on embryonic stem cell research often involves arguments about the issue's ethical implications, Goodman's study brought economists into the fray.
Ross Emmett, co-director of the Michigan Center for Innovation and Economic Prosperity, said he has no reason to doubt such research could create jobs. But he is skeptical of Goodman's analysis.
"I have a very hard time believing that the actual estimates are anything more than just a big guess," he said.
Goodman acknowledged critics may take issue with the estimates and that the economic gains could be smaller than predicted. Asked about the 1 percent figure, Goodman acknowledged it was somewhat "arbitrary."
Craw argued that using any number, no matter how small, is misleading when there's no justification for it.
"It's a small number and that's the fallacy here -- it comes out of thin air," he said.
John Hudson is a correspondent with Capital News Service in Lansing.
Print this story
E-mail this story
