Topeka ? The Kansas Senate voiced approval Friday of a bill to put $500 million behind the state’s fledgling bioscience industry, but the debate over stem-cell research continues.

The measure would divert the funds over the next 15 years into bioscience research and development and establish an 11-member bioscience authority to work with state universities, recruit top scholars and build facilities. Supporters say the effort would create thousands of new jobs.

But much of the cutting-edge work in bioscience involves stem-cell research, and the measure that has gained approval so far stipulates that research funded through the initiative could not include abortions or the use of cells or tissues derived from abortions.

Sen. Nick Jordan, R-Shawnee, said the provision represented a compromise between anti-abortion advocates who wanted stricter limits and higher-education officials who wanted fewer limits.

“I think we found a spot that people are OK with it right now,” he said.

Sebelius’ worry

But Gov. Kathleen Sebelius said she would rather the Legislature send her legislation that didn’t have restrictions on stem-cell research.

“I would prefer a bill that allows researchers to research,” Sebelius said. “I worry about having a legislative body in 2004 provide some restrictions that may well move important scientific research to other parts of the country.”

The bill, put together by Jordan and Rep. Kenny Wilk, R-Lansing, has been praised by state leaders as the No. 1 economic development proposal of the session.

State’s bioscience bill built on compromise (3-19-04) Abortion foes seek to restrict research allowed in bioscience bill (3-17-04) See more stories about life-science research development

“This is a bold and new venture for the state of Kansas,” Jordan said.

Sen. Karin Brownlee, R-Olathe, an abortion foe who heads the Senate Commerce Committee, agreed.

“This creates a huge opportunity to build on the assets that we have in Kansas,” she said.

Known as the Bioscience Initiative Act, the measure was approved 119-6 last month in the House.

Despite concerns about the use of fetal tissue and other aspects of the mammoth legislation, the measure won overwhelming support in the Senate, where it was advanced to final action on a voice vote. Differences in the House and Senate versions most likely will be ironed out in a conference committee.

Construction jobs

During Friday’s debate, some senators expressed worries over the broad powers of the bioscience authority, the eligibility of certain companies that could take advantage of funding through the program, and whether everyday Kansans would benefit through an increase in construction jobs to build the research facilities.

“This bill is pretty wide open,” said Sen. Chris Steineger, D-Kansas City.

Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, of Topeka, tried to amend the bill to ensure 75 percent of construction workers hired to build the research facilities were Kansans.

“As we embark upon this huge, potentially great economic-development plan … we need to guarantee that our people who live in this state will benefit,” Hensley said.

But some senators said ensuring 75 percent of the jobs went to Kansans would be difficult, while others said some facilities might require expert workers who might not be available in Kansas. Hensley’s amendment was defeated 24-14. He lowered his proposal to require that 65 percent of the workers be from Kansas, but that was defeated, too. Similar amendments also failed in the House.

Other concerns

Sen. Janis Lee, D-Kensington, questioned why some companies were listed as bioscience companies that would be eligible for future funding assistance. Her concern was about a couple of seed companies classified as bioscience companies in the bill.

“I know these companies, they’re my neighbors,” Lee said. “They sell seeds, period.”

Jordan said the classification was based on self-reporting to the Kansas Department of Revenue and that the department would review companies about which questions were raised.

Lee also said she was concerned that $500 million would be diverted from the state general fund, which is used to pay for schools and social services.

Supporters of the bill say the loss from the general fund would be offset by the creation of jobs and development related to bioscience research.

Sen. Ed Pugh, R-Wamego, said he opposed the idea of the state trying to help a particular industry because it could hurt other businesses.

“Who does it put at a disadvantage?” he asked.