The path to stem cells lies through Missouri

by emptypockets

Lost somewhere among the polling, celebrity advertisements, and talk-radio blowhards sits a ten-year-old diabetic. Lost somewhere among the debates, the donations, the down-to-the-wire phone banks stands a bright talented graduate student deciding in what field to build her career. And lost somewhere among abortion rights and national health care reform sits stem cell research, not as a political bludgeon but as a real policy that will affect the course of American science for a generation.

We've learned that when it comes to swinging votes, when it comes to revealing candidates' real values, when it comes to driving a wedge between hard-right fundamentalists and true compassionate conservatives, stem cells are important for this election. But the question remains: is this election important for stem cells?

After all, the House and Senate already passed a bill last summer that authorizes federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. That bill was vetoed by President Bush. Does the McCaskill-Talent Senate race in Missouri, where stem cells have become a battlefield issue, really make a difference? How many more pro-research Senators do we need?

The answer is 4. But only if we get another 50 Representatives in the House. That's what it would take to override the President's veto. Is that likely to happen? If we don't get those numbers, is there anything else an even stronger pro-research Congress can do? The answers are "probably not," and "ab-so-fucking-lutely."

Stem cells in the Senate

The stem cell funding authorization bill passed the Senate 63 to 37. We need 67 votes to override a veto.

Among the Nays, there are 8 Senators up for re-election next week. They are Allen (VA), Burns (MT), DeWine (OH), Ensign (NV), Kyl (AZ), Santorum (PA), Talent (MO), and Thomas (WY). The ones in bold are ones I consider possible or likely to flip from Nay to Yea. Burns is quite likely to be replaced by the apparently pro-research Tester; DeWine will be replaced by the pro-research Brown. (Santorum will be replaced by the anti-research Casey, leaving Pennsylvanians in the awkward position of being represented by a pro-research Republican and an anti-research Democrat.)

It seems the two variables that make an anti-research politician reconsider his views are (1) having a close relative with a devastating but potentially curable disease, and (2) re-election. On the first of course I can wish only for the health and well-being of everyone dear to the Senators, but for the second I would take special note of Coleman (MN), Cornyn (TX), and Sununu (NH), each of whom is up for re-election in 2008 and each of whom comes from a state where the other Senator voted Yea. Based solely on those criteria, I would consider these the three softest Nays.

Among the Yeas, the vote of Frist (TN) will be replaced by either the pro-research Ford or the anti-research Corker. Overall, then, to reach an override in the Senate we need to take Montana and Ohio, as well as maintaining and gaining pro-research Senators in Tennessee, Virginia, and Missouri. Failing that, we may turn our eyes to mounting pro-research challenges in Minnesota, Texas, and New Hampshire to encourage those Senators to re-think their positions before 2008.

I cannot emphasize enough how important the outcome of Claire McCaskill's race in Missouri is. She has placed stem cells front and center in the state of Missouri, where voters next week will not only elect a new Senator but will also vote on pro-research Amendment 2, which guarantees stem cell research will be protected in the state. The top of McCaskill's web page is taken up by the Michael J. Fox ad, and she has made it clear that a vote for her is a vote in favor of research. A victory in this race not only gives us another Yea vote but also sends a signal to all politicians that the atmosphere has changed: that voters will not tolerate politicians who put fealty to the President above science, medicine, and the public well-being. I encourage you to help McCaskill get out the vote and provide funds for her efforts.

Stem cells in the House

Unfortunately, a veto override vote in the Senate would mean very little without two-thirds of the House to back it up. The stem cell bill passed the House last July by a vote of 235 to 193. Thus, we would need to flip about 50 Yeas to Nays (and get the non-voters who support research -- Evans (IL-17), Gutierrez (IL-4), Lewis (GA-5), and McKinney (GA-4) -- to show up and vote) in order to bring federally funded stem cell research back to this country.

The House is difficult to handicap because there are so many members to track and polling is relatively sparse. I'm going mainly by Mimikatz's latest analysis in her outstanding series summarizing the national picture week-by-week.

From Mimikatz's analysis, I see about 15 districts where a representative who voted Nay may be replaced by a Democrat. Those incumbents were Beauprez, Chabot, Chocola, Cubin, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Hayworth, Hostettler, Kennedy, Ney, Nussle, Reynolds, Sherwood, Sodrel, and Taylor (NC). There's another 10 or so that optimistically might be taken over by Democrats: Hart, McMorris, Musgrave, Osborne, Otter, Pombo, Renzi, Ryun, Schmidt, Souder, and Tiberi. I haven't gone race-by-race to figure out where an anti-research incumbent might be replaced by a pro-research Republican or if any of the Democrats in these races are themselves anti-research. But, figure a best case scenario where something like 25 new Congresspeople vote Yea and those 4 non-voters show up. That gets us close to 30 more votes, but still about 20 votes short of a veto override.

Here, again, is where Claire McCaskill's campaign in Missouri plays in. Claire is situated to become the poster child for candidates swept into office on a wave of voters who support publicly funded science research and reject fundamentalist anti-science dogma and the politicization of science, from stem cells to evolution to global warming. Facing a lame duck President with even lamer national approval, facing a public demanding that science be held above politics, demanding that America pursue every avenue to cure disease, are there 20 more Congresspeople who might think twice before voting Nay, before cutting off that hope, before giving their constituents a big middle finger and the President a kiss on his foot? It's not likely that we'll get a veto override in the House. But it's not impossible.

The path to stem cells

After the polling, the campaigning, the vote-counting is over, people will continue to get sick with diseases we can't cure. Scientists will continue to work on understanding the fundamental principles of life, giving doctors new ideas for how to help the sick get well. The mid-term election won't change that. No matter what happens, most of the cures will likely come from biotech and pharmaceutical companies.

But the speed with which those ventures progress depends critically on the basic science that we invest in. As I've argued before, public money is best spent on basic research not diseases -- questions like, "How can a cell divide forever?," "How can a single cell divide to give two different types of cell?," and "How does a cell decide whether to be a nerve cell, a pancreas cell, a blood cell, or something else?" The answers to these simple questions are what is being held back by the President's anti-research restrictions, and the understanding that comes from those answers is what will allow the field to move forward. Curing Parkinson's is great, but first you need to understand the problem. That's what academic researchers are good at, and what is too risky for most private companies to invest in. (Disclaimer: I'm an academic scientist, although I don't do anything with stem cells.)

Some of that can happen without a stem cell bill. Increasing NIH funding is part of it -- President Bush is the first President since Nixon to cut the NIH budget, and the consequences have been painful throughout public research. That is something that we can reasonably expect next year's Congress to fix, and that will help. But to understand stem cells, we need to be able to work with stem cells. State funding initiatives, like that set up in California, are terrific and I think they make science funding healthier overall in the long term, but they are not enough.

The chances of getting a stem cell bill past President Bush next year are slim. The chances of overriding his veto in 2008 are better, but decidedly iffy. (If he is impeached, of course, we needn't worry about his veto.) Are there ways to restore stem cell funding without a stem cell bill? There is no law barring stem cell research -- there is a 1996 law that prevents the creation or destruction of embryos for research, but it allows the use of any new stem cell lines derived by industry, foreign labs, or other non-federal sources. In 2001 Bush issued a Presidential directive to NIH (which is in the executive branch) telling them not to fund any research using new stem cell lines. (Excellent background material here.) From what I understand, the President could issue a directive not to fund any research that supports evolution -- anything that Congress hasn't explicitly authorized, he is free to restrict -- and because the directive is confined to the executive branch, a legal challenge is all but pointless.

I'm not convinced there are no ways around it. For example, I could imagine a bill that says "NIH is authorized to fund any research not prohibited by Congress." Make it part of a Scientific Integrity Act, and include other worthwhile restrictions like prohibiting the White House from editing scientific reports, as they have done in the past for global warming, and preventing them from attempting to restrict funding based on political ideology, as they have attempted for studies of HIV transmission. This approach shifts the debate from stem cells to executive-versus-legislative powers, and places it within the frame of Presidential overreaching, along with torture and illegal wiretaps. All of it is aimed at preventing the politicization of science -- who in Congress is going to stand up to vote in favor of politicizing science and Presidential overreaching?

There are other real policy issues that will come before this Congress, that have been stifled until now. Genetic nondiscrimination. Restoring the Office of Technology Assessment, a nonpartisan group that reports on scientific issues to Congress and that Gingrich dismantled in 1995. It remains authorized, but unfunded, and a Democratic Congress should bring it back. NIH funding. All of these depend on increasing the number of pro-research Congresspeople.

Those efforts will be pushed by us, by the voters, but also by new groups like Scientists and Engineers for America. I spoke by phone with a member of the SEforA Board of Directors for this post, and I want to acknowledge how helpful that conversation was for the background. They are there as a resource for all of us, if you are writing on science and have a question post it at their blog or their discussion group on facebook (apparently you don't need to be in college to join facebook anymore, who knew?). Groups like SEforA will be carrying this fight forward and holding Congress to its promises -- I encourage you to join them (you don't need to be a scientist). This week they will be launching a major buy of banner ads on local news sites targeting specific races, and I'm told that money you give them now will be put directly into that effort -- a one-stop shop for you to help promote pro-research candidates.

Stem cells are becoming an important part of our political campaigns; we need to make sure they become an important part of our policy-making as well. It's important for American science, and for American values -- for rationalism, for a belief in truth over ideology. It's important for all of us who have had someone close suffering from a disease that is waiting to be cured. I've read many of the comments on this topic in the past week on DailyKos and was struck by how even a relatively small community like that has such a very large number of people affected by Alzheimer's, by Parkinson's, by diabetes and MS and ALS, by diseases whose best hopes for treatment lie in the future that will come out of a basic understanding of how stem cells work.

We need to keep telling those stories. I'm grateful to those in the blogosphere who have told us about their experiences, how fromer's grandfather had Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, like draftchrisheinz's great-grandfather, the Alzheimer's sufferers like blue jersey mom's mother, the Parkinson's sufferers like not one but two of Boris Godunov's grandparents, smugbug's boyfriend's father, peteri2's grandfather, Fletch17C's grandfather, gatorcog's father, Keone Michael's grandmother and aunt, Jon Meltzer's mother and grandmother, TheGardener's loved one, True Blue Tar Heel's father, Trim Your Bush's uncle, mickT's father, Pandoras Box's brother, Dirk McQuigley's grandfther and uncle, Vince Hill's grandmother and aunt, emptywheel's mom, Rinaldo Migaldi's mother, nsrider's grandmother, and BoxerDave's mother, the diabetes sufferers like 2dems4life's mother, the ALS sufferers like geordie's aunt, the MS sufferers like varro's mom and Webster's close friend's mom. I'm grateful to those members of our community who have shared their personal experiences and how they feel about seeing stem cell research choked, like kilo50 and Timroff who each have diabetes, and the admirable ALS Fighter who, of course, has ALS.

These are not rare diseases. These are not trivial ailments. These are life-destroying, expensive, terrifying illnesses. Stem cells, as an issue, reveal politician's values -- but stem cells, as biology, reveal an important part of the future of American science and medicine. When that future arrives will be determined, in part, by next week's election. We need to put up a giant neon sign that says "Vote against stem cells, vote against research, vote against science, and you will be replaced."

The place for that sign is Missouri.

Comments

[DemFromCT]

excellent

and note that changing the landscape has been known to change a few representatives' party, let alone change their vote on something as popular with the public as stem cell research.

[emptypockets]

the House is really tough to call. Given the the trend toward a breakdown in Republican party discipline, I'm not the stem cell vote wouldn't improve considerable even without whatever may happen next week.

[freepatriot]

from what I've heard, the repuglican party has to defend 21 Senate seats in 2008, so I wouldn't look for much defense of george bush from these 21 Senators in the next two years

It is sad but true, progress takes time

with george bush in the whitehouse right now, the Democrats should control both houses of Congress and the Presidency on January 20, 2009 (or even sooner)

so federally funded stem cell research is coming, sooner or later

if this issue continues to get media play, look for massive repuglican defections in 2007 (in a futile attempt to run from the gop policies)

impeachment, stem cell research, social security, perscription benifits

repuglican congresscritters are gonna get a lot of chances to chose between party and country

by their votes shall you know them

look for lots of faux compassion from the freepi in the future

just don't fall for their bullshit

[smiley]

once we have subpoena power, I expect another 20 or 30 republican indictments in the house. They're all rotten, and once the control mechanisms (money and blackmail) are open to public scrutiny, the whole game is going to change.

[mickey]

Research does not have to be government funded. It is certainly true that academic research has traditionally been funded by government grants. And, as any academic researcher knows, one's university appointment is linked to one's grant-getting ability.

As we all know, that system certainly has its flaws. There is nothing, absolutely nothing stopping Universities from funding their own research in other ways. Frankly, I would love to see an institution or two start doing that with stem cells - institutional funds, private donations, etc. Besides being a good idea for lots of other reasons, it might break the government's stronghold on science, which now, as in the Nixon era, has been a real impediment to scientific progress.

In the main, government regulation of research has been a good thing, insisting of some kind of investigative oversight and relevance, but in this case, with this Administration, on this topic, it's cancer...

[Leslie in CA]

Thanks, emptywheel. It's true that these are not at all rare diseases; in my immediate family are two cases of diabetes and one of Parkinson's. Restoring science and research to their proper place, with proper funding and oversight, should be one of the top priorities of a Democratic Congress.

[Carol]

I live in Missouri and am backing Claire 100%. She will most likely carry the only 2 large metropolitan cities, Kansas City and St. Louis, but the rural and Ozark areas have more churches than people per square inch and will most likely vote against both Claire and the stem cell initiative. So many of the 'thumpers' have been misled to believe that if the 'no' votes prevail on November 7 the whole stem cell research program will be illegal in Missouri (not true, it simply won't be contitutionally protected). These people believe that life begins at conception but you can't make them understand that no sperm is involved, therefore, there is no conception. Some days I want to scream when I hear them parroting Falwell, Dobson, and Robertson as well as a few assorted local nutcases.

[Jodi]

emptypockets I am for stem cell research, and science, and medicine.

I fear though that on both sides vast overstatements are being made. The arguments/discussion is no longer about reality, but more about very rigid attitudes, and a lot or recriminations.
There is more rancor about this than any other thing I can think of, because both sides are so positive and adamant.

"Life and death," "good and evil" are very polarizing subjects.

[emptypockets]

mickey, this is an interesting debate:

There is nothing, absolutely nothing stopping Universities from funding their own research in other ways. Frankly, I would love to see an institution or two start doing that with stem cells - institutional funds, private donations, etc.

some universities do draw heavily from private donors, especially here in New York. Nationally, the private Howard Hughes Medical Institute has been a fantastic source of support for the top-tier labs. But, although it's hard to find numbers for total research funding by private groups, my suspicion is that it is a teaspoonful next to the public investment. The NIH budget is about $30 billion per year -- that's equivalent, for example, to the entire amount of assets the Gates foundation had before Buffett put in. He contributed the same amount, about $30 billion. Buffett's amazing philanthropic gift will be distributed at a rate of about $1.5 billion per year, roughly what it would take for the NIH budget just to keep pace with inflation.

Based on those kinds of numbers, I don't think the resources are there in the private philnathropy world to support research the way we do it. I don't know what you are thinking of by "institutional funds," but I'm guessing it's the kinds of things that keep humanities departments running -- university endowments, things like that -- and judging by the way things are going there I'd have to say thanks, but no thanks. Basic research is worth the sizeable public investment we put into it -- if we can get that without politicizing science, so much the better, but I don't think we can do without the public funding tiself.

[Mikikatz]

Good post, emptypockets. California passed a bond issue to fund stem cell research ($3 billion, IIRC) but it has been bogged down in various problems like conflict of interest rules. Still, people are hoping it will produce results.

On the races, as far as I know things look good on the first 15 races you mention. Of the second group, Hart, McMorris, Musgrave, Osborne, Otter, Pombo, Ryun, and Schmidt look the most promising to dump. Some of the previous "no" votes may think twice, but some are diehards. I think packaging is the key.

McKinney lost her primary. I don't know who is replacing her.

[emptypockets]

freepatriot, that is one benefit of being a progressive -- the times always catch up to your positions, sooner or later. I agree that it is just a matter of time before we get federal stem cell funding back. But we may by then have a President trying to push politics into science in some other area. It will always be something. That's why I think it's important to set a precedent -- preferably a statute -- that prevents the politicization of science funding and reporting, not just for stem cells but across the board, for research today and tomorrow.

Jodi, if you found something in this post that was a "vast overstatement" or that departed from reality, of course I'd be glad to discuss it with you. I don't see it as good vs. evil, I see it as progressive vs. reactionary. There is an internally consistent philosophy that says that technology and science do not increase human happiness, and I can appreciate it and respect it and see the reasoning behind it. But I just don't share it.

Mimikatz, good to hear from you! hope things are well in the southwest. You know, I thought I was blowing it on the McKinney reference but a quick google didn't turn up anything -- of course you're right, though, and looking more deeply I see she lost to Hank Johnson in the primary. I haven't found any reference to his stem cell position, but I'm guessing from the little I know of the district that he's pro-research.

[Jodi]

emptypockets,

I spoke more generally than this thread.

I repeat-
"I fear though that on both sides vast overstatements are being made. The arguments/discussion is no longer about reality, but more about very rigid attitudes, and a lot or recriminations.
There is more rancor about this than any other thing I can think of, because both sides are so positive and adamant.

"Life and death," "good and evil" are very polarizing subjects."

I speak of "both sides" That is all the groups involving themselves in these debates. You and I are just tiny little specks on a vast landscape of competing forces.

I am for it. I make my living pursuing forward looking ideas, science, engineering, ... And I am not in it for just the money.

[William Ockham]

Here's an interesting bit of anecdotal data. I just talked to my dad. He's a semi-retired Southern Baptist preacher in southwestern Missouri. He's fairly middle of the road, politically speaking. My mom, on the other hand, is a pretty solid liberal vote, at least by Missouri standards. I asked him if they were going to be voting for Claire McCaskill. He said, "Absolutely, we're done with that other party, you know, the perverts, crooks, and liars." A laugh accompanied the "you know", and I instantly realized something. I doubt my dad will ever vote for a Republican again.

My dad is certainly not the stereotypical Baptist preacher (at least politically, theologically he's conventional enough to teach Exegesis and Hermeneutics at an SBC school). He is a classic swing voter. Values matter a lot more to him than policy, but it is values in practice, not in speeches. I think this election is the beginning of the erosion of the Republican brand in the heartland. I think there is a lot of room for a populist/progressive appeal by Democrats in middle America.