Mass. lawmakers reaffirm bill for stem cell research

State lawmakers yesterday rebuffed Governor Mitt Romney's latest bid to bar scientists from cloning human cells and once again approved a measure that broadly endorses embryonic stem cell research.

The Legislature also rejected three other changes the Republican governor proposed. By large margins, lawmakers refused to take out wording defining when life begins, rejected his call to further limit what women can be paid for donating their eggs, and turned down his proposal to strengthen a ban on fertilizing eggs for research. Both the House and Senate reaffirmed the bill they approved last March and sent it back to Romney's desk.

According to three senators who did not want to be named, Senate President Robert E. Travaglini had agreed to adopt two of Romney's amendments, but reversed course earlier this week after Romney's chief spokesman criticized the Senate's budget, which includes raises for State House aides. The two amendments briefly agreed to would further limit compensation to women and tighten the restrictions on fertilizing eggs for research. Neither change would have had a major impact on the bill.

A Romney spokeswoman said the governor will veto the measure, but both chambers have approved the measure with large majorities that would overrule him.

''Governor Romney is a strong supporter of stem cell research, but he will veto this particular bill because it contains very serious flaws and crosses very serious ethical boundaries," Romney spokeswoman Julie Teer said.

Supporters describe the embryonic stem cell measure as a historic step that will put Massachusetts at the forefront of scientific efforts that could lead to cures of dreaded diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Only two other states, California and New Jersey, have explicitly proclaimed their support for stem cell research. Researchers are currently doing stem cell work in Massachusetts, but state law is ambiguous on its legality.

Stem cells, which are found in embryos, umbilical cords, and some adult tissues, have the potential to develop into a range of muscles, organs, nerves, and other types of tissue in the body. But many researchers are interested in stem cells from human embryos, called embryonic stem cells, because they are the most versatile. Among other things, those cells may be able to repair and regenerate damaged tissue and organs, such as spinal cords severed in accidents.

The Catholic Church and other antiabortion groups say scientists should not experiment on embryos because they are human beings, but few on Beacon Hill share that view. Most of the lawmakers who oppose the bill agree with Romney that the state should allow the use of embryos left over from in vitro fertilization, which might be destroyed anyway, but not the creation of embryos for research.

''We are moving into uncharted territory by allowing human cloning," said Senator Brian P. Lees, the Republican leader. ''We do not need to create new embryos to move forward with embryonic stem cell research."

But Senator John A. Hart Jr., Democrat of South Boston, said the process sometimes called ''nuclear transfer" is ''a major piece of what this bill is all about."

''We are not building babies in the laboratory," Hart said. Referring to his own opposition to abortion, Hart said: ''I'm prolife. But I think this is a prolife piece of legislation, where we can relieve the misery and suffering of so many people out there."

Though the bill allows scientists to produce embryos for research through cloning, it bans reproductive human cloning, or the creation of babies. It also bars scientists from creating embryos through fertilization ''with the sole intent of donating the embryo for research." According to Romney, that wording would not prevent researchers from creating embryos through fertilization for their own purposes, and might clear the way for ''human embryo farming." But legislators rejected tougher language, saying it was not necessary.

Romney also wanted the bill to make clear that women donating their eggs could only be reimbursed for ''out-of-pocket expenses," such as transportation and medical services, arguing that allowing a larger payment might persuade poor women to undergo the potentially risky procedure for cash. But lawmakers said there was no reason why women should not also be compensated for their time, if they had to miss work for the procedure.

''The governor's language does absolutely nothing to protect women," said Representative Daniel E. Bosley, Democrat of North Adams, who has been shepherding the bill in the House.