Posted by
Katie Favazza on Thursday, August 31, 2006 5:19:06 PM
To those of you who laugh when I suggest Missouri is worth of national attention, I say HA!
George Will does an ok job of covering the hot topics in
this, but I was disappointed with the piece in general. The style here is more like that of a reporter than of an analyst, though he "reports" nothing new.
I was only home for 2 weeks this summer, but it was immediately clear that the stem cell initiative is a first priority of many, many Missourians, regardless of which side they are on. Will writes of the issue a bit, but he does not clarify some important elements here.
Why would Talent remove himself as a sponsor of a particular Senate bill to ban cloning, and then oppose this stem cell initiative in Missouri (that Will himself doesn't seem to mind)? Read this part again [emphasis my own].
Talent, a right-to-life evangelical
Christian, removed himself as a sponsor of a Senate bill to ban cloning
because he thought it might ban research he considers ethically
acceptable. . . .
Danforth, one of whose brothers died of Lou Gehrig's
disease, and who hopes that embryonic stem cell research might hasten
discovery of cures for that and other diseases, is honorary co-chairman
of a lavishly funded -- and, so far, popular -- campaign to amend
Missouri's Constitution this November to protect the right to conduct
such research. Such research is important to Washington University in
St. Louis, and a private philanthropist is promising to fund
substantial research in Kansas City, but only if the amendment passes.
McCaskill supports it. Talent opposes it.
Not very clear, eh? Why wouldn't Will take the time to say what it is about the new bill that Talent opposes? Why spend a lot of space writing about how much Danforth likes it--when that clearly is not relevant (or shouldn't be) to the Senate race? Sigh...
In the past ten years, Washington University has really put itself on the map and made a name for itself. The school has a great deal on the line with this initiative because they want to compete with the Ivy world: a world largely out of touch with reality, a world with 'hubs' (call them schools if you must) in the most liberal of states. The immediate future of "Wash U" relies upon the freedom to crank out research and results at Ivy speed, with Ivy methods and unfortunately, Ivy ethics. With the help of the aforementioned Danforth bucks
(I've written about his cash before), they have much to 'gain' from the bill if it goes through. Missouri, on the other hand, has much to lose in the ways of dignity and respect.
Will's column really missed out on a great opportunity here to explain the distinction here.