Politics is almost certain to be in the fallout when belief systems collide.

Churn science and religion into the mix and you have a combustible  combination.

Then, toss in fundamental disagreements over how to determine the definition of human life and differing opinions over how to best value, secure and protect life.

No wonder embryonic stem cell research has entered the political arena and is likely to play an increasing role at the ballot box.

With elected officeholders and candidates divided over the issue and feeling intense pressure from both sides, the debate is spilling outside legislative chambers into the hands of the people.

That’s where it’s being settled - or, at least, addressed - in some states.

Not in Nebraska.

Not yet.

In 2004, California voters decided to authorize nearly $3 billion in funding for stem cell research - including embryonic-based research - over the next 10 years.

An initiative proposal amending the state constitution was approved by 59 percent of the voters.

Last year, Missouri voters spoke in a more constrained manner.

They approved a constitutional amendment guaranteeing that any federally approved stem cell research and treatment can take place in Missouri.

That initiative, prompted by legislative proposals to criminalize the procedure, was supported by a narrow 51 percent majority of voters.

The vote totals in Missouri serve as dramatic evidence of the sharp split over the volatile issue — For: 1,085,396. Against: 1,034,596.

In Nebraska, embryonic stem cell research at the University of Nebraska Medical Center is narrowly  limited to the small number of dated cell lines approved for federal funding support by President Bush in 2001. Two scientists at the Med Center are pursuing embryonic stem cell research, seeking new ways to treat liver and lung disease.

What would Julie Schmit-Albin do?

“Our priority is a ban on unethical medical research,” said Schmit-Albin, executive director of Nebraska Right to Life.

“Our ultimate preference is that the Legislature draw a line in the sand.”

For Schmit-Albin and her organization, that would mean no expansion in research beyond the Bush limits.

Hers may be the highest-profile voice in the state opposing expanded embryonic stem cell research. Her pro-life, anti-abortion organization has compiled a database of 58,000 identified pro-life households, and it plays an active role in state politics.

Although pro-life forces have had mixed success in dealing with the Legislature — a proposed ban on somatic cell nuclear transfer, or so-called therapeutic cloning, was bottled up in committee this year — Schmit-Albin believes taking the issue to the people is not a viable option.

“We’ve talked about an initiative petition drive” to propose a constitutional ban on expanded embryonic stem cell research, she said.

“But when an issue can be framed by dollars, as it was in Missouri, pro-life comes out on the short end of the stick. Our adversaries have beaucoup bucks.”

In January, at the annual Walk for Life march in Lincoln, Schmit-Albin drew her own line in the snow.

“Unethical research,” she said, “is the new Roe v. Wade.”

Sandy Goodman, a board member and spokesman for Nebraskans for Research, said expanded embryonic stem cell research holds the promise of “saving lives, alleviating suffering and bettering the human condition.”

That, he said, has been the record of medical research for centuries.

And it has been “achieved often against the same objections being raised today,” he said.

Goodman said he’s not aware of any consideration of a proposal to seek a vote of the people on an initiative to protect or expand embryonic stem cell research.

The Nebraska Democratic Party spoke clearly in favor of expanded embryonic stem cell research in its 2006 platform.

The party urged “expanded federal funding for all lifesaving stem cell research,” with the “all” capitalized.

“Stem cell therapy offers hope to more than 100 million Americans who have serious illnesses — from Alzheimer’s to heart disease to juvenile disease to Parkinson’s,” the Democrats said.

Nebraska Republicans have not addressed the issue of embryonic stem cell research head-on.

Their 2004 party platform states: “We oppose human cloning and research that destroys human embryos or uses fetal tissue from elective abortion.”

Medical researchers work with stem cell lines derived from embryos previously discarded at in vitro fertilization centers.

All five members of Nebraska’s congressional delegation have voted against expanded federal funding for embryonic stem cell research beyond the narrow limits established by Bush.

Earlier this year, the House approved such legislation on a 253-174 vote and the Senate passed a similar measure on a 63-34 vote.  Neither vote commanded the two-thirds majority required to override a presidential veto. 

Bush vetoed similar legislation in 2006.

A 2006 national Gallup poll found that 61 percent of respondents believed embryonic stem cell research is morally acceptable.

But only 11 percent supported unfettered government funding, and 19 percent wanted no government funding at all.

Thus far, the Legislature has been content to rely on a University of Nebraska Board of Regents policy restricting embryonic stem cell research at the Medical Center to the limited cell lines approved by the president six years ago.

Last year, former regent Drew Miller said research proponents need to consider a petition drive to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot ensuring the continued use of embryonic stem cells in medical research.

Miller, who retired from the board at the end of the year, said failure to enact such a protection risks the Medical Center’s research future.

Reach Don Walton at 473-7248 or dwalton@journalstar.com.