New at Reason

November 10, 2006

Ronald Bailey attempts to assess the impact stem cell research had on the Republicans' election defeats.

Comments

D.A. Ridgely|11.10.06 @ 9:08AM|#

Mr. Bailey's enthusiasm for the eventual benefits of stem-cell research aside, I rather doubt the evidence cited, which he admits is mixed at best, is evidence of much at all. Those who oppose the research on moral grounds almost certainly outnumber those, Michael J. Fox notwithstanding to the contrary, who both support it and factored it significantly into their decision to vote for or against any particular candidate.

I think we would need at least a few more referendums on the issue before drawing much of a conclusion about any of this, let alone that what Bailey dismissively calls "pandering to the Religious Right" on this particular issue turned the tide. As equally plausible (or, for that matter, implausible) counter-evidence, look at the success of the gay marriage ballot initiatives.

|11.10.06 @ 9:48AM|#

"Those who oppose the research on moral grounds almost certainly outnumber those who both support it and factored it significantly into their decision to vote for or against any particular candidate."

Perhaps, but that's not the relevant comparison. What matter is whether "those who oppose the research on moral grounds AND FACTORED IT SIGNIFICANT INTO THEIR DECISION...outnumber those...who both support it and factored it significantly into their decision to vote for or against any particular candidate."

There's no point in comparing the number of committed Republicans who oppose the rersearch to the certain sub-set of swing voters.

D.A. Ridgely|11.10.06 @ 10:23AM|#

Fair enough, joe, except that opposition to stem cell research is driven almost entirely by moral concerns regarding the ontological status of the embryo, most obviously manifest in the morality of abortion. While one can be passionately "pro-choice" on, say, women's rights grounds but largely indifferent to stem cell research, the latter is not the case. In this case, therefore, I think it is reasonable to assume that there is more passion among embryonic stem cell opponents than among supporters, that this is likely to play out that way as far as deciding candidates goes, and that the comparison is therefore appropriate.

However, as indicated by the one case where the issue was squarely in front of voters, I suspect the population is, in fact, fairly evenly divided which I think is further reason to doubt Mr. Bailey's desired interpretation of the evidence.

|11.10.06 @ 10:24AM|#

D.A. Ridgely:

The success of anti-gay initiatives shows that the faith and morals crowd voted in large numbers. They just didn't see stem cells as biblically forbidden and, moreover, they have faith that stem cell research will lead to something. You are basically asking people who believe in God based purely on faith to require extensive scientific evidence on a moral issue.

D.A. Ridgely|11.10.06 @ 10:36AM|#

Lamar:

I agree with your first sentence and I think there is probably some truth in some cases to your second sentence but I don't understand your third sentence.

Few people (few I know, anyway) who oppose embryonic stem cell research doubt such research could prove medically beneficial. They may doubt that it is as likely to be as beneficial as some claim and they may believe that alternatives exist. They may be right or wrong about any or all of this, but that isn't really all that relevant to their objections.

As for what is or is not "biblically forbidden" or whether that is the sum and substance of any or all opposition to embryonic stem cell research, I rather seriously doubt that fairly characterizes the issue.

|11.10.06 @ 10:48AM|#

Speaking of stem cells, should parents spend the pesos to retain and store cord blood? It ain't cheap.

|11.10.06 @ 11:41AM|#

It's interesting that MO was the first state that amended its constitution to ban gay marriage, and then later amended it to permit stem cell research.

Maybe some of the hillbillies think that stem cell research can "cure" homosexuality.

|11.10.06 @ 3:33PM|#

So libertarians who are against unnecessary government spending in all forms allegedly support federal stem cell research? So unnecessary government spending is ok as long it is on things you like? The hypocrisy is very apparent.

|11.10.06 @ 7:06PM|#

The stem-cell issue will be dead within a few years, probably by 2010 and almost assuredly by 2012. Why? Because we are already close to being able to extract stem cells without killing the embryos.

Frankly, the government shouldn't be funding research at all. If it is, it damned well should stick to uncontroversial research, of which there is plenty to do. There is no need at all to pursue this narrow line of research now. We can take the money and invest it in other life-saving research for the time being, until we can do embryonic research morally.

There is no excuse to take the low road when the high road is available.

Just the fact that we are talking about this issue shows that it has been hyped a hundred times beyond what the science justifies. Scientists hype their own work for two reason - grant money, and because they are biased in the first place towards their own subject of study (or they would have chosen something else). When the media gets it, it gets hyped again. And when politics enters the picture, the hype explodes beyond all reason.

|11.10.06 @ 7:12PM|#

mark,

I suspect that many of the libertarians here are in favor of federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research simply because the pro-lifers are against it. Same as NARAL, which really has no dog in stem-cell research, yet is a proponent because they believe that banning funding of embryonic stem-cell research will somehow mean that the pro-lifers have an inroads into justifying their anti-abortion views (even though nobody mentions the HUGE difference between a fetus which can be aborted and an embryo which is an entirely different creature).

|11.11.06 @ 8:50PM|#

mark,

The stem cell initiative in Missouri merely stated that any stem cell research that was legal under federal law would be legal under Missouri law as well. Unless I'm mistaken, it didn't include any funding.

Lamar,

I disagree with "The success of anti-gay initiatives shows that the faith and morals crowd voted in large numbers."

Sadly, it isn't just "the faith and morals crowd" who oppose gay marriage but, in most states, the majority of the public.