St. Louis ? As Jeff McCaffrey views the Missouri stem cell debate, the case for research is clear. Paralyzed in a traffic accident, the former Air Force Academy cadet sees embryonic stem cell work as “faithful, godly and absolutely moral.”

To many socially conservative Republicans and religious leaders in Missouri, however, a new political campaign to legalize and protect such research is an evil to be fought in courtrooms, churches and polling stations.

Lawrence Weber, executive director of the Missouri Catholic Conference, called it “morally reprehensible science.” Voters may be asked to decide. After the courts weigh in, that is.

At issue is an amendment to the Missouri constitution proposed for the November 2006 ballot by a well-funded coalition of research institutions and patient advocacy groups frustrated by legislative attempts to ban early stem cell work in a state with a significant stake in biomedical research.

If voters support the amendment, Missouri would be the first state to formally recognize a right for scientists to conduct federally approved embryonic stem cell research, and for patients to receive treatment, backers say.

The collision of politics, science and religion is particularly vivid in a region where, just next door, a conservative majority on the Kansas State Board of Education recently rewrote science standards to spur teachers to challenge modern Darwinian evolution.

Stem cell proponents believe a ballot victory in a largely Republican state such as Missouri would be a significant boost for science and a satisfying win in the culture wars.

From the other side, opponents would love to see social conservatives crowd the polls in a replay of last year’s overwhelming approval of a ban on same-sex marriage, yet Republicans are more divided on the stem cell issue. While Sen. James Talent, R-Mo., is co-sponsoring a federal bill that would ban the procedure widely known as therapeutic cloning, Republican Gov. Matt Blunt and former Republican senator John Danforth have backed the proposed ballot initiative.

A particular type of embryonic stem cell research has become the focus of the Missouri debate. Known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), it is the procedure that produced Dolly the sheep, the world’s first cloned mammal. In SCNT, the nucleus of an unfertilized egg is replaced with the nucleus of an ordinary body cell that contains a full set of genetic information.

Within a few days, this develops into a human embryo, or the beginnings of one, that contains a cluster of stem cells, which can become any type of cell in the human body. Scientists hope one day to use such cells to replace damaged or diseased tissue.

Most mainstream scientists contend that the cells should not be considered an embryo or a human clone because they are not implanted in a woman’s uterus and will not become a fully formed fetus.

“When people hear the phrase ‘clone a human being,’ they think of an attempt to make a human version of Dolly the sheep. No one thinks of making a few dozen cells in a petri dish,” said William Neaves, president and chief executive officer of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research, a private institution in Kansas City, Mo. “We believe, as do many people of faith, that a few cells in a petri dish cultured from a patient’s own skin cells do not represent a new human being.”