Millions more in funds for Missouri for stem cell research amendment
Posted by Jesse Reynolds October 18, 2006
Biopolitical Times
Today, the campaigns on both sides of Missouri's proposed stem cell research constitutional amendment released their latest fundraising reports. The shocker is that the amendment advocates, the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, have now raised a total of $28.74 million. (Their opponents have raised $1.2 million.)
Compared to California's Proposition 71 campaign, which set aside $3 billion in public funds, Missouri's research advocates have now raised over five times more, on a per capita basis. About $28 million of that has come from Jim and Virginia Stowers, wealthy cancer survivors who founded the Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City with a $2 billion endowment.
Why would the Stowerses set aside so much money for an initiative that does little more than enshrine the status quo? I can think of three possible reasons.
1. If we take the campaign at face value, then they wish to create a stable policy environment for research. They've threatened to build the next expansion of the Institute out of state if Amendment 2 fails. But since the current Institute campus is merely five miles from the Kansas border, this would not seem to be a hardship worth that sort of money. Besides, the proposed Amendment has been consistently leading in the polls.
2. The voter initiative could be a useful get-out-the vote mechanism for the tight race for Missouri's open Senate seat. Although the Stowerses have donated to both major political parties, they likely recognize that the real battle over research cloning is in the federal Congress. A ban on the procedure would be law if not for a Senate filibuster. And Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill is a clear supporter of research cloning, whereas her Republican opponent was, until recently, a co-sponsor of the bill to ban the practice nationally.
3. Stem cell research advocates have won the debate over using embryos "leftover" from fertility clinics in research. It's only a matter of time before federal funding is expanded in this area. The next battle is over research cloning, which, from their perspective, needs to be not only legal but also protected and - ideally - publicly funded. Research advocates are working to reframe the practice as an essential part of lifesaving stem cell research. If such protection can be endorsed by voters in a heartland bellwether state such as Missouri, then other politicians will notice.
Reports have been circulating that initiatives similar to Missouri's are being considered elsewhere. But success in Missouri may not mean much for other proposals. How many other states have potential benefactors like the Stowerses?
Compared to California's Proposition 71 campaign, which set aside $3 billion in public funds, Missouri's research advocates have now raised over five times more, on a per capita basis. About $28 million of that has come from Jim and Virginia Stowers, wealthy cancer survivors who founded the Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City with a $2 billion endowment.
Why would the Stowerses set aside so much money for an initiative that does little more than enshrine the status quo? I can think of three possible reasons.
1. If we take the campaign at face value, then they wish to create a stable policy environment for research. They've threatened to build the next expansion of the Institute out of state if Amendment 2 fails. But since the current Institute campus is merely five miles from the Kansas border, this would not seem to be a hardship worth that sort of money. Besides, the proposed Amendment has been consistently leading in the polls.
2. The voter initiative could be a useful get-out-the vote mechanism for the tight race for Missouri's open Senate seat. Although the Stowerses have donated to both major political parties, they likely recognize that the real battle over research cloning is in the federal Congress. A ban on the procedure would be law if not for a Senate filibuster. And Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill is a clear supporter of research cloning, whereas her Republican opponent was, until recently, a co-sponsor of the bill to ban the practice nationally.
3. Stem cell research advocates have won the debate over using embryos "leftover" from fertility clinics in research. It's only a matter of time before federal funding is expanded in this area. The next battle is over research cloning, which, from their perspective, needs to be not only legal but also protected and - ideally - publicly funded. Research advocates are working to reframe the practice as an essential part of lifesaving stem cell research. If such protection can be endorsed by voters in a heartland bellwether state such as Missouri, then other politicians will notice.
Reports have been circulating that initiatives similar to Missouri's are being considered elsewhere. But success in Missouri may not mean much for other proposals. How many other states have potential benefactors like the Stowerses?
.jpg){kind=link}