The uproar over stem-cell research continues to echo in Missouri. A proposed constitutional amendment that cleared a House health committee the other day would undo the protections for such research that had been put into place by a constitutional amendment last year. The plan should go no further.

Opponents argue that the procedure known as somatic cell nuclear transfer kills life at the earliest stage. But for life to begin, at least as we understand the process, an egg must be fertilized. No fertilized eggs are used.

Also, the 2006 amendment prohibits human cloning.

The procedure that critics want to outlaw uses an egg from a donor of a relative suffering from a specific life-threatening illness, such as cancer, or a spinal-cord injury. The nucleus of the egg would be destroyed and replaced with DNA from the patient and then allowed to grow. Resulting cells would be implanted in the patient with the hope of curing either the illness or regenerating spinal nerves.

The constitutional amendment proposed and approved last year ensures that research and investments in that research and facilities would not be easily short-circuited over the years by legislative foes.

Somatic cell nuclear transfer may or may not bring treatments and cures for some forms of cancer, for Parkinson’s, for nerve repairs or for a long list of terrible debilitating and deadly diseases. Supporters never claimed that it would. The truth is that no one knows. But for thousands of Missourians today and in the years ahead, somatic cell nuclear transfer is about the only glimmer of hope they have.

An economic byproduct of Missouri’s constitutional approval for this stem-cell research is that the state can expect to attract researchers and high-paying research jobs as well as new construction. That is a secondary consideration, but an important economic one.

The real benefit of somatic cell nuclear transfer for Missourians will come with the first cure or effective treatment from the research.