Missouri's Amendment 2 both passes and fails
Posted by Jesse Reynolds November 8, 2006
Biopolitical Times
The election results are in, and although Missouri's stem cell initiative passed, it did not truly succeed.
A few weeks ago, I proposed three reasons why so much effort (i.e. $30 million) was behind Amendment 2.
So, how did its supporters do in these regards?
They did achieve the goal of enacting the policy at hand. But that does little more than enshrine the status quo stem cell research policy into the state's constitution. This will have little impact beyond providing enough certainty of policy for one or two researchers to begin cloning-based stem cell research in the state. Given that bans on such research cloning have been regularly introduced in the legislature, some may find the certainty worth it. But as we've noted before, a ban on research cloning is quite unlikely to become law.
The second goal that I hypothesized - helping Democratic challenger for Senate Claire McCaskill - doesn't seem to have been met. Sure, she won, but not because of Amendment 2 or the embryonic stem cell research issue. Although 80% of those who voted yes on Amendment 2 also voted for McCaskill, the same portion of the no votes went to Jim Talent, the Republican incumbent. Her margin of victory (3%) was greater than that of Amendment 2 (2%). And as the stem cell research initiative dropped in the polls leading up to the vote, observers began to wonder if it was an asset for McCaskill or Talent. My guess is that it is a wash. And this morning, McCaskill said nearly as much: "[stem cell research] certainly wasn't the dominating issue that the national media made it after the Michael J. Fox ad."
My third possible goal - to build the momentum for embryonic stem cell research, and particularly research cloning, as a winning policy in moderate states - was a clear failure. Amendment 2 squeaked by, and only after its backers spent a stunning $30 per "yes" vote. And because nearly all their funds came from one source, this will be difficult to repeat elsewhere. The fact is that while the American public is generally supportive of human embryonic stem cell research using embryos from fertility clinics that would be destroyed anyway, they balk at research cloning. In well-worded polls, the practice typically gets only 40 to 45% support (see pages 43 and 44 of this PDF). Building a ballot initiative around this seems to be an unwise plan.
A few weeks ago, I proposed three reasons why so much effort (i.e. $30 million) was behind Amendment 2.
So, how did its supporters do in these regards?
They did achieve the goal of enacting the policy at hand. But that does little more than enshrine the status quo stem cell research policy into the state's constitution. This will have little impact beyond providing enough certainty of policy for one or two researchers to begin cloning-based stem cell research in the state. Given that bans on such research cloning have been regularly introduced in the legislature, some may find the certainty worth it. But as we've noted before, a ban on research cloning is quite unlikely to become law.
The second goal that I hypothesized - helping Democratic challenger for Senate Claire McCaskill - doesn't seem to have been met. Sure, she won, but not because of Amendment 2 or the embryonic stem cell research issue. Although 80% of those who voted yes on Amendment 2 also voted for McCaskill, the same portion of the no votes went to Jim Talent, the Republican incumbent. Her margin of victory (3%) was greater than that of Amendment 2 (2%). And as the stem cell research initiative dropped in the polls leading up to the vote, observers began to wonder if it was an asset for McCaskill or Talent. My guess is that it is a wash. And this morning, McCaskill said nearly as much: "[stem cell research] certainly wasn't the dominating issue that the national media made it after the Michael J. Fox ad."
My third possible goal - to build the momentum for embryonic stem cell research, and particularly research cloning, as a winning policy in moderate states - was a clear failure. Amendment 2 squeaked by, and only after its backers spent a stunning $30 per "yes" vote. And because nearly all their funds came from one source, this will be difficult to repeat elsewhere. The fact is that while the American public is generally supportive of human embryonic stem cell research using embryos from fertility clinics that would be destroyed anyway, they balk at research cloning. In well-worded polls, the practice typically gets only 40 to 45% support (see pages 43 and 44 of this PDF). Building a ballot initiative around this seems to be an unwise plan.
.jpg){kind=link}