Embryo research to color race for governor

Embryo research to color race for governor

Tom Beaumont, the Register's REAL political writer, looks at stem cells and the Democratic primary in three articles today.

Blouin is the only Democratic candidate who would not seek to change the law. He said it allows cutting-edge research on existing embryos without going beyond what is accepted by the federal government.

But jump to the last grafs:

Mary Hendrix, former head of cell biology at the University of Iowa, said Iowa's ban - similar to those in Arkansas, Indiana, Michigan and North and South Dakota - is a signal that Iowa will not be among the nation's scientific leaders.

"States that are investing, or are stem cell research-friendly, will attract the best scientists in the biotechnology field and will be able to provide better health care for their citizens," said Hendrix, who left Iowa in 2002 to lead the Children's Memorial Research Center at Northwestern University...

So on scientific grounds, Blouin's argument doesn't wash. And politically it's a blatant pander. Blouin has staked out a position that's extreme even for Republicans, in an effort to appeal to the fetus-worship constituency. What he's failed to learn in the 30 years since he last won an election is that the single issue "pro-life" (sic) lobby is now permanently wedded to the GOP.

A Blouin-Nussle race sets up a pro-life (sic) pro-business conservative against a pro-life (sic) pro-business conservative, and will come down to "the Democrats want to raise your taxes."

Meanwhile, let's hear from the rest of the field:

Fallon voted against it, and Judge has proposed repealing it and establishing the Iowa Center for Regenerative Medicine within the state university system.

"It was wrong, and I will change it. This is an opportunity to save lives," Culver said at the candidate forum.

Meanwhile, lame-duck Tom Vilsack "said he would lift the ban he signed on cloning human embryos if the Legislature acted to repeal the law." He says it's because of "scientific advances" in the four years since he signed it. But more significant factors may include:

He signed it in April `02, six months before his re-elect. It would be a bad political move now, but it was a little edgier four years ago. The politics of the issue have shifted dramatically since then. This issue is a crack in GOP pro-life (sic) solidarity, with the Reagan family's support of stem cell research a big factor.

More to the point, Beaumont notes: this "align(s Vilsack)more with other Democrats considering running for president in 2008."

It's a no-cost move for Vilsack since the GOP-controlled House is unlikely to make any change. Even if a couple Republicans are supportive, leadership can bottle it up in committee. And if it escaped committee, the 49 Dems would have to hold together. And about 35 (?) of them have endorsed Blouin. Even if they disagree on this issue they won't want to embarrass their favored candidate. Besides, they'll be too busy debating gay marriage.

As a bonus someone without a byline offers a scientific primer.

I'm not a believer in New Year's resolutions. Just set your goal and do it no matter what the calendar says. But since the new year is bloggiversary time, I'll make one: My goal this year is to spell-check befoer I post.