Presidential Campaigns

THE ISSUE OF stem cell research, especially that involving embryonic stem cells, first surfaced as a presidential campaign issue, albeit on a very minor level, in 2000. In the presidential election in 2004, it became much more visible and was one of the topics discussed directly in national debates between the candidates.

The controversy over whether embryonic stem cell research should receive federal funding was elevated to the point at which a significant percentage of the American electorate knew about it, expressed opinions, and voted accordingly. The promise of a solution to diseases such as diabetes or Alzheimer's or the ability to repair spinal cord and similar injuries contrasted with what seemed to many others the creation of life only to destroy it, so as to harvest the material for effecting these cures.

In the end, however, its importance was outweighed by other considerations such as the war in Iraq and the economy. In 2008, it has formed part of the platforms of candidates from both parties, with some assigning it more importance than others. In this most recent election, however, the possibilities of using adult stem cells may have undercut some of the fierceness of the debate, which earlier centered on the use of embryonic stem cells.

Even if it is not a hot—button issue, stem cell research has been significant in at least two ways. First, it has been an instance of where scientific research has been of such potential importance to so many people that it has been discussed widely and become an issue and discussed as part of a national dialog as an integral part of presidential elections. Also, for those who study elections, it [Page 435]has provided an opportunity to see how an issue of moral, health, and scientific/technological interest can be used by presidential candidates and the parties and interests that support them. For other observers, it was an example of how scientific facts can be altered to help pursue a political agenda.