It started with a controversial video and ended with the victory of Democrat Claire McCaskill in Missouri. At issue was a ballot measure that would protect embryonic stem-cell (ESC) research. Both McCaskill and her Republican opponent Jim Talent campaigned hard, with supporters claiming that the measure would save lives and critics opposing the abuse of embryos for research. At Slate, William Saletan observes that both candidates warped the truth to suit their cause, yet “each side's warning was essentially true. If you block ESC research, you're closing off what might be the quickest path to saving many lives. And if you promote the research, along with the embryonic cloning that makes it therapeutically useful, you're seriously messing with the foundations of life.” What’s more, he observes, the tensions over this science will only intensify as baby boomers strive to live longer, healthier lives.

The debate over how far scientists should to in order to preserve and improve life represents a whole new kind of policy argument which falls outside the national security, economic, and cultural issues which have historically dominated politics. “[B]iotech politics didn't start in Missouri, and it won't end there…With polls on their side, Democrats have declared ESC research one of their top six priorities for the new Congress. Republicans, scrambling for alternatives, are proposing new stem-cell derivation methods that tamper more ambitiously with the human recipe” Expect the exploding biotech debate to become a staple political issue in the years to come. Editorial