Arch City Chronicle

people. politics. st. louis.

Threading the Test Tube

When it comes to stem cell research, President Bush and Governor Blunt have found themselves on opposite sides of the same coin. A coin they may hope eventually lands in their coffer.

Nationally, the President has been applauded by his base for his 2001 decision limiting government funding for embryonic stem cell research to a few cell lines, despite continued pressure to offer greater support. Last week the director of the National Institutes of Health, Elias Zerhouni, told a Senate committee that the nation's science would be better served if more research was allowed.

In Missouri, Governor Blunt has found himself on the wrong-end of the Pro-Life call list. Blunt's unfettered support for life science and technology education extended to support for last years' constitutional amendment protecting all forms of stem cell research, while at the same time prohibiting state funds for research on embryonic stem cells. That same push prompted his MOHELA-funded Discovery Initiative.

That support has led Missouri's pro-life community, which adamantly opposes embryonic stem cell funding, to decertify Blunt's pro-life status. The groups refuse to support any program where even a single state-funded test tube could potentially play a part in the research.

Despite language in the legislation that would set up a wall between biotech research funded by the Discovery Initiative and any embryonic stem cell research, the groups (perhaps wisely) expect politicians to eventually knock out a brick or two.

Blunt's programs would channel millions into biotech education, which he believes will spur along a burgeoning life science industry in Missouri. St. Louis' CORTEX district has been on the forefront of that wave, bringing millions in research dollars to the area.

The Governor's business supporters, a major source of funding for the Governor's party, have been enthusiastic about his initiatives. A well-educated workforce prepped for the biotech field is a natural draw for the industry. It's a business requiring major capital investments which means serious investment. And the prestige of having top-flight biotech businesses setting up shop in your state doesn't hurt.

Now, however, the Governor finds his signature program in for a major retrofitting, and a major pillar of his political support questioning his beliefs on one of the fundamental Republican issues (though he approval has tack up slightly, likely because of the retooling of the Initiative). Republicans who are seen to be wobbly on pro-life issues don't get elected (or re-elected as the case may be) state-wide. The Governor has found himself trying to thread a very fine needle as he leads up to 2008.

Perhaps, as John Combest suggested in January, he should try and take advantage of his Discovery Initiative gamble.

The shift towards plant sciences does not imply the field is an also-ran. One merely has to look at Monsanto, the Danforth Plant Science Center and Missouri Botanical Gardens in the St. Louis area alone to see that. However, as the old saw goes, you only have one chance to make a first impression.

Posted by Matthew on Mon., Mar 26, 2007 at 10:35 AM | Business & Development news (141)
Comments

On this subject of stem cell research, I find myself strangly in agreement with Gov. Blunt. We are the heartland of the midwest and have the world leading Bot. Gardens, Wash U. and the CORTEX district. All perfect draws. This will be a boost to the City, the region, and the state for MANY YEARS TO COME.

I am a religious person, but I also am alive today because of stem cell research. True, it was research on adult stem cells, but my point is what if back then that type of research was banned? I think I understand the religious view of protecting life, but we are on the threshold of possible new cures and wonders. Where does one draw the line? Do the possible benefits outweigh the costs? These waters are murky and full of moral and ethical dilemmas.

But we don't know what if any cures can be found by this line of research. Isn't it worth it to try and find out? Would you be willing to give up your life or the life of a loved one if there are possible cures out there?

But besides all this, last year the voters voted FOR the research. Why are the voters being ignored?

Posted by Maurice on Tue., Mar 27, 2007 at 10:48 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?