IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v41y2014i3p359-369..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Voting for stem cells: How local conditions tempered moral opposition to Proposition 71

Author

Listed:
  • Nick Dragojlovic

Abstract

A major theme in the debate on Proposition 71, the 2004 California ballot initiative in which voters approved US$3 billion in state funding for stem cell research, was the tension between values-based opposition to the use of embryos in medical research and a focus on the potential health benefits of stem cell therapies. Using a dataset that combines individual-level voting intention data from three Field Poll pre-election surveys and county-level data, the present study finds that moral opposition to Proposition 71 decreased as the local prevalence of chronic diseases and the proportion of elderly residents in respondents’ counties increased. The paper argues that this finding reflects an increase in the salience of the possible benefits of stem cell research that was driven by local conditions, and concludes with a discussion of the implications of this dynamic for the democratic governance of regenerative medicine in the context of an aging society.

Suggested Citation

  • Nick Dragojlovic, 2014. "Voting for stem cells: How local conditions tempered moral opposition to Proposition 71," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 359-369.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:41:y:2014:i:3:p:359-369.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/sct066
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:41:y:2014:i:3:p:359-369.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.