Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:03:04.202Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Policy for science by ballot or by roll call?

Observations from stem cell research policymaking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2020

Jonah J. Ralston
Jonah J. Ralston*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
*
Correspondence: Jonah Ralston, Email: ralstonj@uww.edu
Get access

Abstract

This study compares stem cell research policymaking by legislators and citizens in the United States. First, using exit poll results from a 2006 stem cell research initiative in Missouri, the study finds that deeply held personal values such as religious beliefs and views of abortion predominate in an individual’s voting decision on this issue; second, an analysis of voting behavior by senators on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 finds that senators make their voting decisions based on their personal policy preferences rather than their constituents’ preferences; and third, the complexity of the Missouri citizen initiative is compared with that of the legislation in the U.S. Senate, finding that the language of the citizen initiative is more sophisticated than the language of the legislative act. These findings provide the context for a broader discussion of the role of citizens and legislators in making policy for science.

Keywords

stem cell researchscience policycitizenslegislatorsvoting behavior
Type
Article
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , Spring 2021 , pp. 3 - 18
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramson, P. R., Aldrich, J. H., Gomez, B. T., & Rohde, D. W. (2014). Change and Continuity in the 2012 Elections. CQ Press.Google Scholar
Allum, N., Allansdottir, A., Gaskell, G., Hampel, J., Jackson, J., Moldovan, A., Priest, S., Stares, S., & Stoneman, P. (2017). Religion and the public ethics of stem-cell research: Attitudes in Europe, Canada and the United States. PLOS ONE, 12(4), e0176274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Associated Press. (2007, October 19). Missouri: Stem-cell amendment draws dueling lawsuits. Joplin Globe. https://www.joplinglobe.com/archives/missouri-stem-cell-amendment-draws-dueling-lawsuits/article_bf910199-5be1-574c-ac10-db90bcb54a88.htmlGoogle Scholar
Bertelli, A. M., & Carson, J. L. (2011). Small changes, big results: Legislative voting behavior in the presence of new voters. Electoral Studies, 30(1), 201 –209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (1998). Demanding Choices: Opinion, Voting, and Direct Democracy. University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branton, R. P. (2003). Examining individual-level voting behavior on state ballot propositions. Political Research Quarterly, 56(3), 367 –377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broder, D. S. (2000, March 26). Dangerous initiatives: A snake in the grass roots. The Washington Post.Google Scholar
Burgin, E. (2009). Deciding on human embryonic stem cell research: Evidence from Congress’s first showdown with President George W. Bush. Politics and the Life Sciences, 28(1), 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childs, D., & Stark, L. (2009, March 6). Obama reverses course, lifts stem cell ban. ABC News. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Politics/story?id=7023990&page=1Google Scholar
Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Apter, D. E. (Ed.), Ideology and Discontent (pp. 206–261). Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
Dragojlovic, N. (2014). Voting for stem cells: How local conditions tempered moral opposition to Proposition 71. Science and Public Policy, 41(3), 359 –369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edison Media Research & Mitofsky International. (2006). National election pool general election exit polls. http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/04684Google Scholar
Fiorina, M. P., & Abrams, S. J. (2009). Disconnect: The Breakdown of Representation in American Politics. University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Gerber, E. R. (1996). Legislative response to the threat of popular initiatives. American Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 99–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, E. R., Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (2004). When does government limit the impact of voter initiatives? The politics of implementation and enforcement. Journal of Politics, 66(1), 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goidel, K., & Nisbet, M. (2006). Exploring the roots of public participation in the controversy over embryonic stem cell research and cloning. Political Behavior, 28(2), 175 –192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, J. D. (2006). Electoral competition and democratic responsiveness: A defense of the marginality hypothesis. Journal of Politics, 68(4), 911 –921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, A. (2007, July 23). Stem cell movement faces setbacks in MO. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/23/AR2007072300954.htmlGoogle Scholar
Ho, S. S., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2008). Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(2), 171 –192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, W. G. (2002). Liberal-conservative thinking in the American electorate. In Carpini, M. X. Delli, Huddy, L., and Shapiro, R. Y. (Eds.), Research in Micropolitics: Political Decision Making, Participation, and Deliberation (vol. 6, pp. 97–147). JAI Press.Google Scholar
Karch, A. (2012). Vertical diffusion and the policy-making process: The politics of embryonic stem cell research. Political Research Quarterly, 65(1), 48–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levendusky, M. S., Pope, J. C., & Jackman, S. D. (2008). Measuring district-level partisanship with implications for the analysis of U.S. elections. Journal of Politics, 70(3), 736 –753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, A. D., Lacy, T. A., & Hearn, J. C. (2013). The origins of human embryonic stem cell research policies in the US states. Science and Public Policy, 40(4), 544–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieb, D. A. (2006, November 8). McCaskill upsets talent for Mo. Senate. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/08/AR2006110800350.htmlGoogle Scholar
Masci, D. (2008, July 17). Declining majority of Americans favor embryonic stem cell research. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewforum.org/2008/07/17/declining-majority-of-americans-favor-embryonic-stem-cell-research/Google Scholar
Medoff, M. H., Dennis, C., & Bishin, B. G. (1995). Bimodal issues, the median voter model, legislator’s ideology, and abortion. Atlantic Economic Journal, 23, 293–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehmood, S. R., & Zhang, D. (2001). A roll call analysis of the Endangered Species Act amendments. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83(3), 501 –512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mezey, M. L. (2008). Representative Democracy: Legislators and their Constituents. Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Miller, J. D. (2009). The impact of college science courses on adult scientific literacy [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Chicago.Google Scholar
Mintrom, M. (2009). Competitive federalism and the governance of controversial science. Publius, 39(4), 606–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintrom, M., & Bollard, R. (2009). Governing controversial science: Lessons from stem cell research. Policy and Society, 28(4), 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, C. Z. (1999). The politics of morality policy: Symposium editor’s introduction. Policy Studies Journal, 27(4), 675–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newport, F. (2009, January 28). Gallup state of the states: Importance of religion. Gallup. http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/State-States-Importance-Religion.aspxGoogle Scholar
Nisbet, M. C. (2005). The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(1), 90–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisbet, M., & Markowitz, E. M. (2014). Understanding public opinion in debates over biomedical research: Looking beyond political partisanship to focus on beliefs about science and society. PLOS ONE, 9(2), e88473.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1983). Effects of public opinion on policy. American Political Science Review, 77(1), 175 –190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patel, K. (2011). The politics of stem cell policy: Ballot initiative in Missouri. Social Work in Public Health, 26(2), 158 –175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pew Research Center. (2007). U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. http://www.pewforum.org/datasets/Google Scholar
Poole, K. T. (2005). Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (1997). Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reilly, S., & Richey, S. (2011). Ballot question readability and roll-off: The impact of language complexity. Political Research Quarterly, 64(1), 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, L. E., Olson, L. R., & Fine, J. A. (2010). Substantive religious representation in the U.S. Senate: Voting alignment with the Family Research Council. Political Research Quarterly, 63(1), 68–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
St. Louis Post-Dispatch. (2005, October 13). Betting on the people: All Missourians can reap the benefits of cutting-edge research.Google Scholar
Stadelmann, D., & Torgler, B. (2017). Voting on embryonic stem cell research: Citizens more supportive than politicians. PLOS ONE, 12(1), e0170656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stem cell science: The foundation for future cures: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, 110th Cong. (2008) (Testimony of Diana D. DeGette).Google Scholar
Stimson, J. A. (2004). Tides of Consent: How Public Opinion Shapes American Politics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, J. A., MacKuen, M. B., & Erikson, R. S. (1995). Dynamic representation. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 543–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolberg, S. G., & Goodstein, L. (2012, March 3). From “nominal Catholic” to clarion of faith. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/us/politics/from-nominal-catholic-to-clarion-of-faith.htmlGoogle Scholar
Suhay, E., & Druckman, J. N. (2015). The politics of science: Political values and the production, communication, and reception of scientific knowledge. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658, 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, J. L., & Uslaner, E. M. (1978). Congressional behavior and electoral marginality. American Journal of Political Science, 22(3), 536 –553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, G. (2001). Bush squeezes between the lines on stem cells. Science, 293(5533), 1242 –1245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wlezien, C., & Miller, A. H. (1997). Social groups and political judgments. Social Science Quarterly, 78(3), 625 –640.Google Scholar
Zaller, J., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 579–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar