They gave presentations, testified to committees, spoke personally with legislators, and even opened up their laboratories so that state senators and representatives could come to observe their work.

“We wanted to show state leaders and the congressional delegation that the unique assets Massachusetts can bring to the table—Harvard University, MIT, and also importantly the affiliated teaching hospitals—are all in a geographic proximity that cannot be replicated elsewhere,” says Kevin Casey, Harvard’s senior director of federal and state relations.

And according to Travaglini spokeswoman Ann C. Dufresne, Harvard scientists were “absolutely pivotal” in securing the passage of the recent legislation.

“With their Powerpoint presentations, their conversations, their meetings, [scientists] were successful in educating lawmakers so that they could feel comfortable about the ethical questions raised,” says Dufresne. “The more legislators understood, the greater the support grew. Education was vitally important—it was key to the success.”

And beyond researchers’ persuasion and Summers’ support, Harvard can influence policy through the various lobbying groups it has joined.

Both the HSCI and Harvard Medical School (HMS), as well as Harvard’s major teaching hospitals, joined the Massachusetts Citizens United for Research Excellence (MassCURE), a group which was created in March to battle Romney’s expected veto. Quickly gaining over 30 institutional members across the state, MassCURE pushed to remove “ambiguous language” about stem cell research from legislation and advocate for bills that would make Massachusetts “hospitable to embryonic stem cell research,” according to its website.

“The point of advocacy groups is to show a broad constituency to legislators—to let them know that it’s not just Harvard University,” says Casey. “Harvard is in a broad-range coalition with hospitals, patient advocacy groups, individual patients, and others that are all united in this promising area of research.”

Likewise, Harvard has tried to show state legislators that the development of stem cell research will benefit not just the University, but also the entire Boston-Cambridge area, turning it into the Florentine Renaissance that Summers mentioned at the Harvard Club of Washington.

“President Summers is promoting the concept that the life sciences in Massachusetts is a sector that is going to be the wave of the future—an important part of that sector is stem cell research,” says Casey.

FUELING THE RESEARCH

Not only did Harvard win a victory with the passage of Travaglini’s legislation, but following on its heels was a proposal last week that would earmark $100 million for stem cell research in Massachusetts.

This pales in comparison to funding in California, which recently decided to give stem cell researchers $3 billion over the next decade.

But representatives at Harvard and in Travaglini’s office say that not even California’s efforts are enough and that NIH needs to fund stem cell research.

“California is in a better situation if they can get their act together. But if you consider the $30 billion a year budget for the NIH, California’s stem cell initiative still doesn’t make up for it,” says Jane Corlette, Harvard’s associate vice-president for government, community, and public affairs. “That puts all of us in the U.S. behind.”

In order to lobby for funding nationally, Harvard’s researchers have had to take on the double roles of scientists and advocates.