In the debate over stem cell research, those who favor destruction of human embryos are desperately trying to rewrite Nebraska legislative history. It's a good sign for those of us who oppose embryonic stem cell research. It shows that the other side can't win on the merits of the argument, so it wants to block further debate.

Legislative Bill 606, passed last year, banned human cloning and destruction of human embryos at state facilities. The other side is now saying that by agreeing to support LB 606, our side agreed that embryonic stem cell research could expand at the University of Nebraska if federal guidelines changed to allow similar expansion at the federal level.

Can we deal in common sense for a moment? Would groups that oppose embryonic stem cell research have said yes to a bill that gave advance approval to expansion of embryonic stem cell research at NU? Of course not. The whole point of our effort is to prevent research that will increase demand for destruction of human embryos.

We were glad to get a ban on human cloning and destruction of human embryos at state facilities because UNMC had been advocating both since 2005, but we wanted more.

Unfortunately, abolition of embryonic stem cell research at NU was never in the cards because even President George W. Bush allowed some degree of embryonic stem cell research. We asked about locking in embryonic stem cell research right where it was at NU. The Legislature said no, the NU Board of Regents has been supervising the degree of embryonic stem cell research allowed at NU and we're leaving that decision to the regents should federal guidelines change.

All parties knew this. That's why the other side went all-out to defeat Tim Clare, an opponent of embryonic stem cell research, in his bid for the Lincoln-based regent seat in 2008.

That was the moment of truth in this contest. The other side knew there was a showdown coming at the board of regents. UNMC and its allies made support for embryonic stem cell research the number one issue in Clare's race for two reasons: 1) to preserve the board's 4-4 split on embryonic stem cell research and thereby leave open a path for expansion of embryonic stem cell research, and 2) to be able to cite a mandate from the public that embryonic stem cell research should expand at NU.

They lost on both counts. In the government-university city of Lincoln, Clare won by a convincing margin of 58-42 percent. A majority of five regents now opposes embryonic stem cell research.

After Clare won, the other side went to Plan B and started the false mantra that Clare's election was irrelevant because all parties already had agreed via LB 606 that embryonic stem cell research could expand at NU.

Clare's regent race was part of a statewide campaign the other side has carried on for years. The resources of the state medical school and a PAC funded by deep private pockets have been used for pro-embryonic stem cell research advocacy, including recruiting like-minded candidates and smearing opponents of embryonic stem cell research as "anti-research."

The one thing our side has always had in our favor is the people of Nebraska. Despite the vastly superior money and political muscle thrown into this contest by the other side, the people of Nebraska keep sending to the board of regents - and the Legislature and the governor's office and Nebraska federal offices - candidates who love stem cell research, but don't want embryos destroyed to do it.

The beauty of the situation is that embryo destruction isn't necessary. The Lincoln Journal Star put it well in an editorial endorsing candidate Clare in 2008:

"Clare says that although he is opposed to embryonic stem cell research, he has no plans to stop current research at NU. … He wants the university to refocus its efforts toward other, less divisive forms of stem cell research. It should be noted that the field of stem cell research has expanded greatly in recent months after researchers last year discovered a way to reprogram skin cells to act like stem cells. The Chicago Tribune reported earlier this month that more than 800 labs have begun using the approach, "suggesting that many stem-cell researchers are starting to move beyond controversial embryonic sources for their work."

It should be noted that the field of stem cell research has expanded greatly in recent months after researchers last year discovered a way to reprogram skin cells to act like stem cells. The Chicago Tribune reported earlier this month that more than 800 labs have begun using the approach, "suggesting that many stem-cell researchers are starting to move beyond controversial embryonic sources for their work."

The science has moved even further in that direction in the year since that editorial was published. In the past two weeks, UNMC has made major announcements about two projects involving the reprogramming process mentioned in the editorial. This proves that cutting-edge research can happen without expanding embryonic stem cell research.

We urge the regents to pass a resolution blocking expansion of embryonic stem cell research at NU and encourage other options in stem cell research. That's a course of action all Nebraskans can enthusiastically support.

Chip Maxwell is executive director of the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research.