The Chronicle sort of takes issue with Fossett, but not really, since like most major media [and all of mainstream bioethics] they are obsessed with whether or not the federal government will reach the level of support for ESCR to begin doling out some tiny percentage of what the Stem Cell Republic of California is already providing. Perhaps you'll have a different judgment. Jim will:

Even if Democrats run the table and win every Congressional race up for grabs in Tuesday's elections, Congress would probably lack the majorities necessary to overcome a likely presidential veto and expand federal funds for research on human embryonic stem cells.

That assessment comes from a Chronicle analysis that examined how a Democratic sweep might alter the pattern of voting on a bill, approved by Congress this year, that would expand the financing. President Bush vetoed the measure, HR 810, and the House of Representatives failed to muster the votes to override the veto. Two-thirds majorities are needed in both chambers to overturn a presidential veto.

The issue has since become a major factor in some Congressional races, as Democrats have used it to try to attract swing voters. Republicans cast almost all of the votes against the bill. Some polls indicate that two-thirds of Americans want to expand federal financing of the controversial research.

The House of Representatives approved HR 810 in 2005 by a vote of 238 to 194. (Democrats are a minority of House members, but 50 Republicans were among those voting yes.) To overcome Mr. Bush's veto, supporters of the bill would have needed 291 votes, or two-thirds of the 435 seats in the House over all.

Rep. Michael N. Castle, a Delaware Republican who sponsored HR 810, plans to introduce similar legislation next year, said a spokeswoman, Kaitlin Hoffman, on Friday. She said that Congressman Castle planned to strengthen the language's ethical guidelines in ways that might win over some opponents of the current bill, including President Bush. For example, she said, the new bill could spell out requirements that parents give informed consent to donate embryos for the research.

Many Democrats and a few Republicans running for contested seats have indicated that they would vote for legislation like HR 810. But after the election, Ms. Hoffman said, "we probably will still not be close enough to 291" to override a veto.

The Chronicle analysis focused on 62 House races that have been defined as competitive by the Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan newsletter regarded as having the pulse of Congressional electoral politics. The Chronicle examined how the incumbents in those races had voted on HR 810 and what positions on the issue have been taken by their challengers.

In only a minority of the 62 races do Tuesday's elections appear to have the potential to shift votes on the stem-cell issue in the legislation's favor. That's partly because the 62 include 12 Republican and five Democratic incumbents who voted for HR 810. In at least two other races in which the Republican incumbent voted against the bill, the Democratic challengers say they would have done the same.

The 62 seats also include 15 where Republican candidates are favored to win, and most of them say they oppose expanding the federal financing.

In the 373 House races that are defined as noncompetitive by the Cook Political Report, Tuesday's elections are expected to result in little change in the balance of votes on the stem-cell issue. So the Democrats would need a lot of upset victories by party candidates who favor expanding stem-cell research to pick up the 53 additional seats required to reach a veto-proof majority.

In the Senate, Democrats are expected to pick up several seats, perhaps enough to yield the 67 needed to override a presidential veto. Sixty-three senators, Democrats and Republicans, voted for HR 810 in July. But a Senate override would be moot if the House failed to go along with it.

Complicating Democrats' attempts to draw distinctions with Republicans, some GOP candidates in House races have issued statements proclaiming that the candidates support stem-cell research. The statements go on to say, however, that the candidates endorse federal financing only of the noncontroversial forms of the research, involving stem cells derived from the adult body and umbilical cords.

The masses are fighting about whether to legalize, ban, fund, demonize or exaggerate stem cell research. The Californians can't wait to get rolling on their $3 billion Stem Cell Domination plan. But the whole debate, even this coming week, seems a bit absurd against the backdrop of patents in stem cell research:

In August 2001, I told a US Senate subcommittee that as much as half of stem cell revenue would likely end up going to patent holders because of absurd patents on the human embryo. No one seemed to care. The debate over embryonic stem cells then was whether it was ethical to do research on them. That is mostly still true, but it won't be for much longer. With $3 billion for stem cell research coming down the chute in California, researchers are terrified. They fear that their own innovations will be credited inappropriately or result in unfair profits, because they will have to license the basic stuff of life from the University of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF). Wisconsin is the home of James Thomson, the researcher who successfully identified and cultured human embryonic pluripotent stem cells, roughly simultaneous to a similar experiment by John Gearhart at Johns Hopkins. All of that has led to complaints from two groups - the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights and the Public Patent Foundation - that have now forced the US Patent and Trademark Office to reconsider the patents. The taxpayers of California are none too pleased either. The $3 billion, they are beginning to gripe, was to go to stem cell research, and they're furious that someone who filed a patent on looking at the human embryo could collect royalties every time an embryonic stem cell is made, or used in a discovery, regardless of whether that cell came from Wisconsin. So can someone own the cells that make up what is important about a human embryo? And if so, do we have to pay them every time we make our own embryonic cells, every time we make a medicine or other innovation from embryonic cells, and even when we use the cells to teach? At least at the blastocyst stage, the answer is essentially yes. The broadest claim made by Thomson in US Patent No. 6200806 is to "a purified preparation of pluripotent human embryonic stem cells which (i) will proliferate in an in vitro culture for over one year, (ii) maintains a karyotype in which the chromosomes are euploid and not altered through prolonged culture, (iii) maintains the potential to differentiate to derivatives of endoderm, mesoderm, and ectoderm tissues throughout the culture, and (iv) is inhibited from differentiation when cultured on a fibroblast feeder layer." WARF, in this and two other patents, in essence owns virtually all imaginable characteristics of human embryonic stem cells. Wisconsin also controls five cell lines, which the state's former governor, former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thomson, just happened to authorize under the Bush "ethical cells" policy of 2001 as among those cell lines in which "the evil had already been done," so the cells were doubly blessed. Basically, if it looks like an embryonic cell, you'd better pay up. And if you try to make something out of your own embryo - yes, the one you made with your own body, from your own body - well, hope you have good lawyers...

Access the rest here at The Scientist.

Oddly in the downfall of Pastor Haggard he tried to excuse his time spent with a hired male prostitute by saying he had contacted him in order to by meth. Apparently in some circles meth abuse is more acceptable then homosexual activity. But now his defenders posit a new theory for his weekly dalliance into the world of depravity--his fat lazy wife. She went to seed thereby driving him into the arms of a gay prostitute! Glad that some in the evangelical right are willing to be expansive in their search for the biological basis of homosexuality!!
- Art Caplan

So as not to be out of step with other pundits of the season, it seems appropriate to take a closer look at how embryonic stem cell research has fared as an election issue. The flap over Michael J Fox’s pro-stem cell ads has raised the issue’s visibility nationally and in some campaigns, but how it will play out as an electoral force is still very much an open question.

In this election cycle, embryonic stem cell research has been very much a Democratic issue. Democratic voters are typically pro-stem cell by large margins, while both Republican voters and politicians have been very much divided. Significant numbers of Republicans voted for the stem cell bill that President Bush vetoed, and a survey released in August by the Pew Research Center showed a sharp split between moderate Republicans, who support embryonic stem cell research by significant margins, and conservative Republicans, who are strongly opposed. Particularly in the districts we’ve labeled “stem cell suburbs”—traditionally Republican areas where many Republicans are more socially liberal than the Republican party base—Democratic candidates have tried to use embryonic stem cells as a “wedge” issue to attract traditionally Republican voters who are uncomfortable with the national party’s social conservatism. The most common Republican response, though hardly the only one, has been that they’re all for the research, they just don’t want to destroy embryos to do it.

This election is also unusual in that it seems to be much more about national issues than the typical midterm election. Midterms are usually low turnout affairs that are more about local issues than national ones. This time, however, national concerns seem to be more prominent, to the benefit of the Democrats, with stem cell research largely overshadowed by concerns about Iraq, health care, terrorism and the economy. The President is unpopular, the Iraq war is not going well, an unusually large number of Republicans are involved in scandals of one type or another, and people have been much more likely to tell pollsters that they are making voting decisions on the basis of national than local issues. Estimates by the folks at Pollster.com, who have crunched truly awesome amounts of survey data, indicate that these national forces amount to roughly a six point and rising Democratic advantage in the House and slightly less than 5 points and declining in the Senate.

As a result, many Democratic candidates have gone to some lengths to portray their opponents as staunch Bush Administration supporters, while many Republicans have gone to some trouble to distance themselves from the Administration.

With that said, let’s look at the major Congressional races and referenda where embryonic stem cell research has been something of an issue. This list probably isn’t complete---it’s been compiled from several sources and reflects races where a Democrat supporting embryonic stem cell research is running against a Republican who opposes it and the difference has been visible enough to attract the attention of at least one reporter. Summaries of polling data in each race are largely taken from Pollster.com and the election coverage of the Washington Post. Not all races are like this—in a few races, such as the Pennsylvania Senate race, both candidates oppose this research, and in a larger number, both candidates support it. In other races, there may be differences between the candidates, but neither candidate has made embryonic stem cell research an issue.

Constitutional Amendments/Referenda

South Dakota Abortion Ban (Referred Law 6)
This vote isn’t about stem cells, but things seem to have heated up lately. This is a referenda on a state law to ban all abortions except those necessary to prevent the immediate death of the mother. The state legislature explicitly rejected amendments to provide exceptions for rape, incest, and to preserve the health of the mother, but ban supporters are arguing that there are exceptions in the law. The ban has attracted considerable opposition from editorial pages and from the state chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The most recent statewide poll in late October, sponsored by the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, showed the ban losing 52 percent to 42 percent.

Missouri Constitutional Amendment (Amendment 2)
This is a vote on an amendment to the Missouri constitution to unambiguously legalize embryonic stem cell research in Missouri. Amendment supporters have outspent detractors better than 10-1. While the amendment has been regularly described in local coverage as “polling well”, the most recent poll I was able to find, sponsored by the St. Louis Post Dispatch, showed the amendment winning 51-35 percent, with an unusually large number of undecideds for this stage of a highly publicized campaign.

Senate Races

The Missouri Senate race between incumbent Republican Jim Talent and State Auditor Claire McCaskill is ground zero for stem cell politics in this election cycle, but this one is too close to call. There’s been a slight movement to McCaskill over the last couple of weeks, but nothing that anybody’s calling decisive. Amendment 2, and the ads Michael J. Fox did for McCaskill, could plausibly help either candidate. Watch this one.

In other contested Senate races, the embryonic stem cell issue has been raised, but seems unlikely to be decisive. Fox made campaign ads for Democrat Benjamin Cardin in Maryland and has made appearance with Democrats Sherrod Brown in Ohio, Jim Webb in Virginia, and Robert Menendez in New Jersey (there may be others), and Democrat Amy Klobucher has been running pro-stem cell ads in Minnesota. There are other issues, however, in these races that seem more likely to be decisive. Klobucher and Brown have been running well ahead for some time, and Menendez seems to be establishing a lead in a solidly Democratic state. Cardin has lost some of his lead recently, as Republican Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele, who’s run a very solid campaign, has scored several endorsements from local black politicians, but Cardin is still running ahead in this Democratic state. Virginia’s a dead heat—Republican incumbent George Allen has made several gaffs, and Webb is consistently running a tiny lead based on strong support from the Northern Virginia suburbs around Washington DC.

House Races

Of the dozen or so House races I looked at where there’s a difference in announced position on embryonic stem cell research (there are almost certainly others), seven are what we’ve labeled “stem cell suburbs”—traditionally Republican suburban districts, mostly in the Northeast or Midwest, that are relatively affluent, well educated, and may be more socially liberal than the Republican base. Kerry won or ran strongly in several of these “stem cell” districts in 2004, but five have Republican incumbents and the one open seat election is to replace a retiring Republican. The other seats are demographic mixed bags, containing mixed urban, suburban and rural areas in Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, California, and New York. Despite their recent electoral histories, most of these dozen districts are rated as “toss ups’ or “leaning Democrat” by the gurus—in only a couple of districts do Republicans appear to have a solid advantage. The old political adage is that “undecideds” tend to break for the challenger, so several of these seats may change hands on Tuesday. In most of these districts, however, other issues besides embryonic stem cells—scandals and Iraq, among others-- have occupied most of the candidates’ attention and seem likely to be more decisive.

Bottom Line?

My record as a forecaster is no better than anybody else’s, but I’ll hazard a couple of guesses. One is that this election is unlikely to produce a veto-proof majority in Congress for embryonic stem cell research—the Senate is too close to call, but may not even produce a Democratic majority, and a number of pro-stem cell Republicans, particularly in the Northeast, are seen as being in trouble, so that even a sizeable Democratic majority in the House is unlikely to produce enough new stem cell votes to override a Presidential veto of another attempt to expand federal funding for embryonic research. This means that the initiative for embryonic stem cell research, at least for the next couple of years, is likely to remain with the states.

Second, the “Michael J Fox effect” is difficult to define with any degree of certainty. Following the initial set of ads, several Democratic candidates appear to have concluded that it works to their advantage to underline the differences between themselves and their rivals on this issue by running pro-stem cell ads or making appearances with Fox. How much this will help or hurt is hard to tell—the stem cell issue may get some Democratic voters out, but it may also motivate some conservatives to come out and vote Republican.

As to my bottom line for the entire election, I’ll hazard a guess that the Democrats will pick up 25-30 seats and retake the House, but the Senate will wind up 50-50.

Finally, bioethicists (and anybody else who reads this) should be sure to exercise their responsibilities as a citizen and vote. If you haven’t done so already, check out your local races, either on pollster.com or somewhere else, and do something about your findings.
Jim Fossett, AMBI/Rockefeller Institute Federalism and Bioethics Initiative

From the press release from the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, the following:"We believe that pro-embryonic stem cell positions played a positive and decisive role in the election or re-election of candidates such as pro-stem cell Maryland Senator Ben Cardin and pro-stem cell Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill, to name a few. And, we are pleased that stalwart stem cell