College Educators: Fill out this short survey to help us figure out your needs, and you'll be entered into a raffle to win a $100 gift card.
Bringing the World's Best Biology to You
00:00:08.03 "Stem Cell Politics: The Michigan Initiative"
00:00:15.23 My name is Sean Morrison and I direct the University of Michigan Center for Stem Cell Biology
00:00:20.15 The state of Michigan had been one of the states in this country
00:00:24.24 with the most restrictive laws when it comes to embryonic stem cell research.
00:00:29.03 It was legal in Michigan to throw embryos away that had been created
00:00:34.16 during in vitro fertilization
00:00:37.17 and in fact, for a variety of reasons, large numbers of embryos
00:00:41.02 are routinely discarded from those clinics
00:00:42.29 that cannot be used for fertility treatment.
00:00:45.21 So, it was legal to throw embryos away,
00:00:47.19 but it was not legal to take the embryos that were being thrown away
00:00:51.20 and use them to drive embryonic stem cell lines
00:00:54.20 that could be used in medical research that might one day help patients.
00:00:58.21 This was really blocking the ability of stem cell research to develop
00:01:03.03 in the state of Michigan in a way that other states
00:01:05.10 with major research universities didn't have to content with.
00:01:08.25 So we, within the University of Michigan,
00:01:10.29 worked to try to improve those state laws.
00:01:14.08 Initially, by trying to work through the legislature,
00:01:16.26 and when that didn't work, we went straight to the people of Michigan,
00:01:20.03 knowing that there was broad bipartisan support among the people of the state
00:01:24.24 for expanded embryonic stem cell research,
00:01:27.00 much like in other states.
00:01:29.04 It turns out that we as scientists have to be involved
00:01:34.02 in the public policy process
00:01:36.03 because if you're not involved, you get bad laws for bad reasons.
00:01:39.29 Policies end up being created partly out of ignorance,
00:01:43.23 partly out of other agendas that can oftentimes
00:01:46.27 destroy opportunities to make people's lives better.
00:01:50.21 So, during the proposal to campaign, we spent a lot of time
00:01:56.22 thinking about how to explain what stems cell research really was,
00:02:01.13 what was at stake, how it could be done more effectively,
00:02:05.03 and how it would potentially help the people of Michigan.
00:02:09.00 Part of that process was in polling and doing focus groups
00:02:13.11 which tried to understand what the public understood,
00:02:16.05 what the public thought about the research,
00:02:18.12 what aspects of the research needed to be explained more,
00:02:21.21 and how we could best help people to understand.
00:02:24.21 And in that process, there were a lot of surprises about what the public really understood,
00:02:29.17 what the public was worried about, and how we could best understand it.
00:02:33.26 Unfortunately, our opponents were also, of course, doing polling and focus groups,
00:02:39.11 except they were looking for what they could use to most frighten the public—
00:02:44.04 to cause people to not support the ballot proposal.
00:02:47.19 Politics 101 is if you want people to vote against an issue, you frighten and confuse them.
00:02:53.14 And so, sadly, the opponents of the proposal, to campaign,
00:02:57.11 when they realized in their own focus groups and polling that
00:03:01.17 none of the true messages about what the proposal was really about
00:03:06.00 actually resonated with public and actually frightened them,
00:03:09.20 they decided to run a 100% false campaign
00:03:12.18 where they made stuff up to frighten and confuse the public that just wasn't true.
00:03:17.14 Their first message was, "Vote against Proposal 2 because it'll increase your taxes."
00:03:21.26 Well, there was no funding associated with the proposal.
00:03:24.21 There was nothing - it had nothing to do with taxes.
00:03:26.29 But, they learned in their polling that people were frightened of new taxes.
00:03:31.11 Their second message was that crazy scientists wanted to mix human DNA with animal eggs
00:03:37.28 to try to clone half-people, half-animals.
00:03:41.09 and they would dress actors up in cow suits and put them on TV
00:03:45.19 to try to frighten people about this brave new world
00:03:48.09 that they would create by voting for Proposal 2.
00:03:51.11 In fact, again, it was obviously a false and ludicrous suggestion,
00:03:56.03 particularly given that cloning remains illegal in the state of Michigan.
00:03:59.18 Prop 2 dealt with the ability to give patients the right to donate for research
00:04:05.28 embryos that were created by in vitro fertilization
00:04:08.29 and that would otherwise be discarded if not donated for research.
00:04:12.28 So it put that right back into patients hands,
00:04:16.02 as it is in most other states within the country,
00:04:18.21 to decide what they do with their own embryos,
00:04:21.16 rather than leaving those decisions with the state legislature.
00:04:24.23 Finally, they argued that stem cell research was akin to the Tuskegee syphilis experiments,
00:04:31.24 which was a terrible period in the history of American medical research
00:04:36.10 in which minority sharecroppers were victimized in the course of medical research experiments.
00:04:43.05 But, of course, that was a turning point in the development
00:04:46.00 of our current notions about medical ethics and patient protection,
00:04:49.17 and nothing like that could ever happen again,
00:04:52.04 as a result of Federal laws, and other kinds of state laws,
00:04:55.16 and the more sophisticated notions we have about what medical research should be.
00:05:00.18 And so there was no truth to that claim,
00:05:03.03 but yet they felt that had an opportunity to frighten the voters.
00:05:06.17 Well, there was widespread coverage in the media,
00:05:10.10 partly because of the efforts of scientists to explain what the research was really about
00:05:15.23 and why the opposition claims were false.
00:05:17.22 There was widespread coverage in the media about how false the opposition claim was
00:05:23.03 and it eventually, during the campaign, engendered anger in the general population
00:05:28.24 about how this special interest group was trying to defeat this proposal
00:05:34.06 by tricking the voters into voting against their own self interest
00:05:39.21 and against their own values.
00:05:42.06 What we learned as a result of that campaign
00:05:46.10 is that hope and truth prevail over fear and misinformation
00:05:51.08 and that scientists can play a really critical role
00:05:54.09 in making sure that the right thing happens in the end
00:05:57.01 by being clear and by spending the time to explain the research to the general public.
00:06:03.26 One of the interesting things that we learned
00:06:09.00 as a result of the polling that we did prior to the campaign
00:06:12.15 was that we asked people to rank sources of information in terms of credibility.
00:06:17.04 And, we listed ten different sources of information:
00:06:20.07 Your friends and family, your physician, your pastor, university professors, etc.
00:06:26.27 And, number one in terms of credibility was university professors
00:06:30.25 University professors are perceived as people who are in the business of education,
00:06:36.01 and who are trying to explain things to the public, and so it's important for us to get engaged.
00:06:42.17 And as a consequence, we had the presumption of credibility
00:06:46.22 when we engaged with the merchants of fear and misinformation in the debate.
00:06:51.02 And so, we owned the moral high ground in this debate
00:06:59.21 because we had the capacity to defend our position by telling the truth
00:07:04.23 and the more the truth came out during the debate,
00:07:07.13 the more likely we were to win.
00:07:09.08 Whereas the opposition had to lie in order to
00:07:12.10 convince people to vote in the way that they wanted.
00:07:14.18 Well, according to every rule of thumb in Michigan politics, we should have lost that campaign.
00:07:20.06 The rule of thumb is that if you want people to vote yes on a proposal,
00:07:22.26 you have to outspend the opponents 2:1.
00:07:25.05 Well, it was 1:1 because we were up against a well-funded opposition.
00:07:29.07 The rule of thumb is that you have to go into the election day
00:07:32.13 with about a 10% lead in the polls because undecided voters
00:07:37.28 break disproportionately to No on election day.
00:07:41.02 And yet, we were going in neck and neck into election day.
00:07:44.26 So, the day before the election, I saw comments from 10 different political pundits,
00:07:49.13 9 of whom said the proposal was going to go down to defeat.
00:07:52.25 And yet, three different news organizations did exit polling
00:07:56.22 throughout the state on the day of the election,
00:07:58.22 and in every case, the exit polls were so clearly trending toward the Yes side
00:08:04.03 that all three news organizations unofficially called it in our favor
00:08:09.15 when the polls closed at 8pm that night.
00:08:12.06 So it was a remarkable experience because we could see
00:08:15.23 that when you could explain things clearly to the public,
00:08:19.24 the public would have an opportunity to really
00:08:23.12 make up their mind based on the merits of the issue
00:08:26.04 and to see through the tactics of fear and confusion
00:08:29.04 that often pervade political debates.
00:08:31.08 And going forward in this area, it will be particularly important
00:08:35.03 for more scientists to be engaged in these kinds of processes,
00:08:40.07 both to defend the public investment in medical research,
00:08:43.20 as well as to create effective laws.
00:08:45.16 And as young people come up through the system and become scientists,
00:08:49.20 for them to understand that part of their job is
00:08:53.01 not just to work in the laboratory and to do their work,
00:08:56.00 but to explain to the public why it's valuable for the public to invest in that work.
00:09:06.11 See more at ibiomagazine.org
00:09:09.07 See scientific lectures at ibioseminars.org
The story of how Morrison and his colleagues convinced Michigan voters to pass Proposal 2 and protect stem cell research in the state.
Sean Morrison is Director of the Center for Stem Cell Biology and Professor in the Life Sciences Institute at The University of Michigan. He is also a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator. His lab investigates the mechanisms that regulate stem cell function in the hematopoietic and nervous systems. Continue Reading
Leave a Reply