A Stem Cell's Worth of Difference

The most eloquent speaker at the Democratic Party convention turns out to be Ron Reagan, who urged all to "cast a vote for embryonic stem cell research." It is not that Reagan possessed more charisma than others, nor were his voice more mellifluous and his delivery, more skillful than other speakers'. What lent his speech its power is the fact that it alone was based on truth and nothing but truth, unlike all other speeches at the convention:

The embryonic stem-cell debate was centre-stage last night at the US Democratic National Convention, in Boston, Massachusetts. It seems that presidential candidate John Kerry and his supporters are eager to focus on the issue.

Ron Reagan, son of former US president Ronald Reagan, spoke about the importance of stem-cell research, calling it, "what may be the greatest medical breakthrough in our, or any, lifetime". He decried partisanship on the issue, and ended his speech with an exhortation for Americans to choose between "reason and ignorance, between true compassion and mere ideology" and to "cast a vote for embryonic stem-cell research". . . .

Interest in the issue has been spurred by the elder Reagan's death from Alzheimer's disease. His widow, Nancy Reagan, openly supports expansion of the scope of stem-cell research in the United States. The current president, George W. Bush, confined research to a limited number of pre-existing cell lines in 2001. According to Ron Reagan, Kerry has told him that his first act as president would be to overturn Bush's stem-cell restrictions. . . .

Kerry has been positioning himself as a pro-science candidate throughout his campaign, visiting NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida on Monday and speaking out on embryonic stem cells. "We need a president who believes in science, and who is prepared to invest America's efforts to cure Parkinson's and AIDS and diabetes and Alzheimer's and do stem-cell research," he said.

Many Republican politicians also support embryonic stem-cell research, including dozens of senators and congressmen who signed letters to the president last month urging him to change his policies. But Bush has not budged, because he sees the practice as morally troublesome.

The Kerry campaign may see the issue as a way to appeal to moderate voters, according to Matthew Nisbet of Ohio State University, who tracks public opinion on stem-cell research. "This is one of the clear areas where the Democrats can say that their platform is substantially different from the Republicans," he says. "They can draw a distinction, making the Republicans look narrow-minded and dogmatic." (emphasis added, Emma Marris, "US Democrats Embrace Stem-cell Issues," news@nature.com, July 28, 2004)

So, let's be fair to the Democrats: there is a stem cell's worth of difference between John Kerry and George W. Bush.

However, if only by focusing on the stem-cell debate can the Democrats clearly distinguish Kerry from Bush, in the midst of wars at home and abroad, the difference between the two parties is indeed microscopic.