blog.bioethics.net

Following up on the NJ stem cell funding defeat

Over at Science Progress, Jonathan Moreno argues that the Garden State's "no" vote on stem cell funding is evidence that federalism might not be the best way to approach biomedical research funding:

The New Jersey vote demonstrates that state-based investment in long-term science can easily get caught up in local politics. Garden State voters apparently decided the issue not on ideology but on the finances. They’re concerned that the state’s fiscal house is in disorder and don’t want Trenton to borrow more money, at least until matters get sorted out.

...

So enthusiasm about state stem cell initiatives needs to be tempered by the New Jersey experience, as well as by the inefficiencies that can arise from doing basic biomedical research without coordination by the National Institutes of Health. As I and my colleagues have written before, the states can’t go it alone.

The state finances explanation for the defeat was repeated in much of today's coverage, but at the Star Ledger's New Jersey Voices blog Terry Golway cautions not to overlook another explanation:

Most political observers, I would argue, fail to take into account the many conversations that took place in and around houses of worship before Election Day. [Seton Hall] Professor Marbach noted that some voters may have been influenced by clergy who oppose stem cell research, or who believe that such research requires a broader discussion of ethical implications.

I think he's absolutely right.

And, by the way, there's nothing wrong that that. When the sacred intersects with the secular, clerics have every right to speak up from the pulpit.