June 21, 2007
Veto for stem cell research
President Bush has again vetoed allowing federal dollars to be invested in human embryonic stem cell research, stating that it “crosses an ethical line” and “violates the sanctity of human life.” The president instead endorsed other types of stem cell research.
Hillary Clinton, one of Bush’s most vocal opponents, was quick with her rebuttal: “This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science, politics before the needs of our families.”
I’m not asking for your politics or religious beliefs as concerns stem cell research (unless you want to state them, which you are certainly welcome to do.) If I knew how to post an anonymous poll for this post I would. Instead I’ll ask you what I believe is a straightforward question. The presidents job is to do the will of the people. Many polls say that the majority of the American public favors federally funded research using embryonic stem cells. Other polls show the opposite finding. So that’s my question to US readers, and I’d appreciate it if you would answer, with or without additional dialog.
Do you believe that federal dollars should be used for embryonic stem cell research?
My Digg buttons never work. Digg it here!
Technorati Tags: CBS News, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, human embryonic stem cell research, TheNewsRoom
RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URI
June 21st, 2007 at 3:53 pm, Mike Says:
I think there should be funding for embryonic stem cell research. This is just another example of how science can work to help the citizens of the nation.
They say that they can use this research to potentially find cures for cancer, Parkinson’s, liver damage, all sorts of things. I think it’s only right that we try.
I don’t know the complete science behind how this research works as I choose to roll my eyes years ago when Bush kept saying no. But I have a hard time finding why this would be considered ‘unethical’ a cell does not have a soul. Don’t they take the cells before any sort of baby development happens?
June 21st, 2007 at 3:58 pm, Cass Says:
No funding. All successes from stem cells have involved adult stem cells, which can be harvested from live donors. You cannot retrieve embryonic stem cells from a live donor. IMO, this “research” is a ploy to make abortion more acceptable.
June 21st, 2007 at 4:11 pm, Kat Says:
I’m not even going to get into the abortion issue. I simply am not in the mood.
But he values life? Is he serious? Are people buying that crap?
If he valued human life as much as he says he does, he’ll bring our soldiers home, stop killing innocent Iraqi civilians, stop letting our troops come home in caskets.
Give me a fucking break.
Does anyone have any idea the things that could be done with stem cells?
take a look at what Germany has been able to do with stem cell research because they also value human life and want to be able to SAVE lives by curing diseases.
I’d put money on it that every single person against stem cell research because of abortion, would be all gung ho for it if they had a kid or family member who could benefit from a cure that is only available because of stem cells.
Screw not talking abortion.
Abortion in this country is legal no matter how much people are opposed to it.
Rather than just letting those stem cells be wasted, we should be able to take them and use them for finding cures.
I think any woman who has an abortion, should be asked to sign a paper stating whether or not she wants the fetuses cells harvested for stem cell research.
The decision should be the womans, no one else.
I want the government to get the fuck out of my body.
June 21st, 2007 at 4:17 pm, Marisa Says:
What Cass said.
Also, there is no scientific proof of when life begins. Until we can pinpoint that moment, I tend to give life the benefit of doubt. I would think that a society that values life would do the same.
I have to wonder how we can justify this research with its questionable ethics, and yet reject the research that Hitler performed on the Jews. The medical community has refused to use any data from Hitler’s unethical research, and rightly so. If science someday shows life to begin at conception, will all the research from embryonic stem cells then be discarded?
June 21st, 2007 at 4:55 pm, Robyn Says:
Nope-No funding! I have no problem saying that–as soon as someone wants to provide proof that stem cells even work for some of these diseases–I might change my mind–but until then—private monetary donors are fine!!
June 21st, 2007 at 5:03 pm, Whim Says:
Yes
June 21st, 2007 at 5:16 pm, caitlin Says:
I say no. There isn’t any actual proof that it will even help. It just “shows promise”. However, umbilical cords have made progress already. So why is everybody pushing so hard to use stem cells when cord blood has already done more and there is no moral issue to deal with? I would have gladly donated my son’s umbilical cord in October, had I had a place nearby to take it.
June 21st, 2007 at 5:41 pm, Kat Says:
A babies heart beats at 18 days. It’s brain makes it first brain wave pattern at day 40.
These are medical facts of when life begins.
June 21st, 2007 at 5:43 pm, Kat Says:
Can someone answer this for me?
We allow humans to be organ donors after they die right? We can donate any part of our body when we die, but we can’t use an aborted fetus because it has more value than someone who has already lived?
Why are we wasting the precious stem cells of ALREADY aborted fetuses that are legally aborted, but we allow people to be organ donors?
Why are the ones who have already lived more valuable for scientific research, than the ones who are legally aborted?
June 21st, 2007 at 5:43 pm, skeet Says:
Yes, Mike, an embryo is a small cell cluster. It certainly has the potential for life, but hasn’t gotten there yet. That’s the answer science gives to the quesiton. Religion sometimes gives a differing opinion.
And, yes, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, spinal cord injury, liver disease - the list of diseases that could potentially be cured is staggering.
June 21st, 2007 at 5:52 pm, skeet Says:
The cells come from donated embryos, not aborted fetuses. The embryos are the “extras” that fertility doctors freeze. In vitro fertilization sometimes takes multiple tries. If they aren’t used they will eventually be destroyed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19339342/site/newsweek/
Adult stem cell research is newer. There have been some recent success. They are not the only or earliest successes. They are the most recent, least proven results.
Edit: This was addressed to Cass.
I’ve been corrected on the adult stem cell angle. The fact remains that adult stem cells do not have the same potential as embryonic stem cells.
June 21st, 2007 at 5:53 pm, skeet Says:
Tell us what you really think, Kat.
June 21st, 2007 at 5:55 pm, skeet Says:
So Marisa, you would rather see unwanted embryos flushed than used to help people? When 60% of the people who can do the donating say they are likely to donate?
June 21st, 2007 at 5:58 pm, skeet Says:
Robyn, proof comes after research. Without funding, no research, or research slowed to a snalis pace. I’ll die before the research is put to use, but what about the next generation and the next? Do they have to die of preventable disease and medical conditions, too, because the embryos were thrown away?
June 21st, 2007 at 5:59 pm, skeet Says:
you’rea woman of few words, aren’t you, Whim?
June 21st, 2007 at 6:02 pm, skeet Says:
And that would be after they pass the embryonic stage of a few cells in a dish, Kat?
June 21st, 2007 at 6:04 pm, skeet Says:
the issue at hand doesn’t even concern abortions, Kat. That’s political misinformation. It concerns embryos that were frozen when they were just a few cells, before they ever developed into fetuses.
June 21st, 2007 at 6:10 pm, Kat Says:
Yes Skeet, AFTER they pass the embryonic stage. Embryonic stem cells are there before the baby’s heart beats, and before the brain ever functions on it’s own.
You mentioned frozen embryos Skeet and I’m so glad you did.
These are embryos that couples have frozen in order to try and conceive. After they conceive they donate those embryos to science, they agree all parts of it can be used.
But because the anti-abortion people somehow think that these embryos relate to abortion (uh) they won’t allow them to be used.
these are not aborted fetuses, they are donated embryos that a couple or a woman, chose to donate to science.
Why can’t we use them?
It has nothing to do with abortion AT ALL.
June 21st, 2007 at 6:13 pm, Kat Says:
the issue at hand doesn’t even concern abortions, Kat. That’s political misinformation. It concerns embryos that were frozen when they were just a few cells, before they ever developed into fetuses.
I mentioned abortion because it was brought up as an excuse to not allow stem cell research.
Political misinformation is right. *eyeroll*
But aborted fetuses, done legally, have viable embryonic stem cells as well.
June 21st, 2007 at 6:21 pm, skeet Says:
I didn’t mean to ignore your comment, Caitlin. Akismet wasn’t playing nice and kept you in hiding.
Cord blood is absolutely a valuable resource. What a travesty that some hospitals are not set up to handle harvesting and storage!
There was no proof that polio or smallpox vaccines would work until research was done. Research comes first. None of the medical miracles we take for granted happened without research. Research needs funding.
June 21st, 2007 at 6:27 pm, Teresa Says:
I strongly believe that there should be funding for embryonic stem cell research.
I asked a question on my own blog the other day, the day it was vetoed.. if you put religious beliefs aside, what other reason would to disagree with it? I’m not saying there can’t be other reasons, I’d just really like to know because it seems everyone I’ve met or heard of, that disagrees with, does so because of their religious beliefs.
When you look at all of the diseases that could potentially be cured or better treated.. why not? Look at the quality you could put back into everyone struggles with diseases like Diabetes, Alzheimer’s.. and even the repairs that could potentially be made by the damages of paralysis!
This should not be “his” decision. It should be the decision of the people!
In my opinion of course..
June 21st, 2007 at 6:29 pm, marcus Says:
Kat is my hero. I agree with her
June 21st, 2007 at 6:38 pm, weirdgrrl Says:
If you don’t mind a Canadian perspective… Here in Canada we have a what is referred to as a “flexible policy” regarding stem cell research (as opposed to “permissive” which allows cloning or “restrictive” which would be you guys). If you want all our guideline mumbo jumbo, it’s at http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/31488.html. But in a nutshell, our government supports stem cell research using human embryonic cells from fertility clinics along with umbilical and placental cells, and even that controversial bugaboo: fetal tissue. All of this is carefully and strictly overseen by a Stem Cell Oversight Committee.
Personally, I think it’s a sensible and scientifically sound approach. Especially given the potential to provide treatment for so many debilitating medical conditions. And this is in NO WAY comparable to the medical experiments conducted during the Holocaust. Those were done without any regard for human life. And to those who believe that embryonic cells are human life (which I don’t), if that life will never be given a chance to develop then how can it be wrong to use those cells to do something useful instead of simply throwing them away?
It’s things like the Holocaust analogy that leads to knee-jerk reactions to something that many people don’t really understand, including Bush. And I agree with Kat that Bush saying he values human life is laughable and in direct conflict with his warmongering. But that’s a rant for another day.
June 21st, 2007 at 6:40 pm, Flo Says:
Staying strictly away from the abortion/when life begins arguement, as a scientist (I am) I believe that stem cell research should go on. As an American who pays way more attention then most, I don’t think it’s the government place to fund said research. Let the private sector take care of it. All the greatest advancement in science, technology, whatever, has come from the private sector. I think the government has other more necessary things that need to be funded.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:06 pm, Leigh Says:
So he says it “crosses an ethical line†and “violates the sanctity of human life”, right? Wow. He consistently talks out of both sides of his mouth, doesn’t he. How he can say that with a straight face, while our young men and women are dying every day in Iraq is beyond me!
Now, regarding the issue at hand: I think there should be federal funding, yes. Having said that, however, I wish to qualify it by saying that I agree with Cass in that the most promising results with stem cell research have indeed come from the use of adult stem cells. I think monies should be funneled to the research garnering the best and most promising results first, then so on down the line.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:38 pm, Kat Says:
Adult stem cells are what is being used here, in the US and showing results.
In Germany and many other places where they do a lot of stem cell research, they are using embryonic cells and getting far better results.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:40 pm, weirdgrrl Says:
Results have been seen from adult stem cell research because it’s less controversial and the research is actually getting done. But embryonic stem cells have far more potential than adult stem cells because they are pluripotent (able to become all cell types of the body). Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are already specialized so their potential to regenerate damaged tissue is very limited and many vital organs do not have stem cells at all. So only embryonic stem cells have the potential to repair vital organs.
As well, large numbers of embryonic stem cells can be grown in culture relatively easily, while adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues and difficult to grow in the lab. Therefore, obtaining clinically significant amounts of adult stem cells (enough sufficient for stem cell replacement therapies) may prove to be difficult.
So yes, there have been results from adult stem cell research. But no, I would not call them the most promising results because their potential is vastly limited when compared with embryonic stem cells.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:57 pm, skeet Says:
Mahalo, teresa. You’v ehit the nail on the head. It was the reason I worded my post so carefully. What IS the will of the American people?
I don’t believe that the president is representing that will.
And, yes, I mis-spoke earlier, re: adult stem cells.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:59 pm, skeet Says:
Hard to not put Kat on a pedestal, isn’t it, Marcus.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:00 pm, skeet Says:
“…sensible and scientifically sound approach.” Exactly what is needed. Faith and facts are not mutually exclusive. Science exists.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:02 pm, skeet Says:
Did it again. Above comment was in response to weirdgrrl. It’s late. I’m tired.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:03 pm, skeet Says:
Hard to believe that the president has the best scientific minds in the world at his beck and call, isn’t it, Flo?
June 21st, 2007 at 9:06 pm, skeet Says:
Yes,Leigh, I did mis-speak earlier re: adult stem cell research. Mahalo for the additional clarity.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:10 pm, skeet Says:
To all who are participating in this comment string: there are a number of people here with opinions that are diametrically opposed to my own. They are people whose opinions I regularly seek, because I admire and respect them. Each of you has the right to speak your own truth here. It is appreciated.
Even when you’re wrong.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:15 am, Marisa Says:
No, Skeet. That’s a leap you took with my statement.
Your argument could apply to the Nazi research done on Jewish twins that were going to die anyway. All of the research was destroyed; the scientific community rejected it because it was obtained unethically. That research could be valuable in curing various illnesses today. It could be a stepping stone to a cure for cancer or a hundred other devastating conditions. Should we be using that data, regardless of how it was obtained?
FTR, Roe v. Wade will not be overturned. That would create chaos in our society. Making embryonic stem cells valuable, however, opens the door to the selling of them. Not those who posted here but other women, in dire financial straits would no doubt get pregnant so that they can sell the embryo. Women sell their very bodies so why not “a cluster of cells”?
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:21 am, Charlotte Says:
I agree with Kat too. I used to like Bush until this Iraq thing. If stem cells will help save lives.. then it should be done.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:06 am, weirdgrrl Says:
Cells that are going to be thrown away and Jewish twins that are going to be killed in the Holocaust anyway… seriously? This is the comparison being made? I don’t mean to be rude, Marisa, but who’s making a leap now?
If you looked at the wording of the legislation in countries that are more permissive than your own, you would see that it’s possible to address concerns like yours while still allowing for research of embyronic stem cells. Many areas of research are the tips of such slippery slopes; legislation is there to make sure that we don’t slide down them into the alarmist scenarios you’ve presented.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:07 am, Jenny-up the hill Says:
No funding….I could not have said it better than Cass did!
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:33 am, skeet Says:
Bio-ethicial oversight is a built-in component of medical research proposals in our reality, Marisa. There is no basis for comparing Nazi atrocities to the currents proposals. To do so is specious and negates any possibility of ongoing fact-based debate.
When medical transplants became a reality, the commercial pregnancy-for-parts-market was trumpeted as an argument against it. The marketing of embryos is based on the same fictitious scare tactic. Again, debate needs to be reality-based.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:43 am, Kat Says:
I cannot believe people are comparing the atrocities against humans by the nazis and embryonic stem cell research.
Wow.
Look, frozen, donated of their own free will, embryos should be allowed to be used.
It’s not an aborted fetus, it’s not going to be used to get someone else pregnant, the couple donated them to science strictly.
There’s no chance of selling them on the market.
I really can’t believe how far people are reaching here just because they oppose abortion.
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:34 am, weirdgrrl Says:
Very well said, both skeet and Kat.
“specious”… that’s the word I was looking for! Thank you skeet.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:47 am, Marisa Says:
Skeet and Kat,
I don’t agree with either of you as you can well see. However, there is no need to call my opinion specious. I believe it does have merit or I wouldn’t have mentioned it. Done looking down your nose at what you assume is my lack of intelligence now?
And Kat, how can an embryo donate itself of its own free will? And you mock my opinion? Perhaps the air is a bit thin up there on that pedestal.
Regardless, the condescending tone here is sickening.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:27 am, Ann Says:
I didn’t read the other responses before I answered this. I do NOT believe Federal money should be spent for embryonic stem cell research. I hold human life very highly, and an embryo is a human life as far as I’m concerned.
Oddly enough, embryonic stem cell research, where it is allowed, has never produced any positive results. What has produced good results is stem cell research when the cells are taken from a donor. For example, if they were taken from the inside of MY own nose, those cells can be used for good, and they are guaranteed not to be rejected by my body. That makes worlds more sense to me.
Any of us can donate our own stem cells to be used for research and good medicine. Yet, we have become so barbaric that we think nothing of destroying human life if we don’t think it’s worthy to live.
Why isn’t there a federal bill to pay for stem cell research from adult, donated cells?? This actually does work.
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:27 pm, skeet Says:
Marisa, I apologize for anything I’ve said that led you to believe that I was being condescending, looking down my nose at you or doubting your intelligence. None of those was intended. I’ve tried throughout this dialog to state my own opinion without injecting an emotional element. I’ve just re-read the entire string and still see what I intended in my own words, but that’s human nature, isn’t it? Just to be perfectly clear: You are an intelligent woman and I value your input. Having opinions different from my own does not devalue you or anyone else in my eyes. I am sorry if I implied otherwise.
As to my choice of the word specious, I selected it carefully for the particular point we were discussing. I believe your logic is flawed in comparing embryonic stem cell research in the US, in this day and time, to Hitler’s atrocities. In my opinion, the two are much further apart than apples and oranges. More like apples and airplanes. My reason for believing your logic is flawed is this:
Hitler performed his experimental atrocities surreptitiously and without the support or input of any valid or respected medical or scientific input. His goals seem to have ranged from whimsical to vile to the deepest and darkest evil.
Modern American medical research in general, and any research involving stem cells or fetal tissues in particular, is done under the scrutiny and oversight of medical and governmental ethicists, with support and input drawn from throughout the medical and scientific community, and in the glare of public expoure to the Americans and the world. The goal is the alleviation of human suffering, the betterment of the human condition.
To me, any argument that relies on a comparison of the two is specious because I see no basis for comparison. Apples and airplanes.
Again, I am sorry I offended you. We can debate opposing opinions without that. I’ll try harder to choose my words with more care.
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:35 pm, skeet Says:
Ann, the president signed off of funding for adult stem cell research at the same time that he was announcing his veto of embryonic stem cell research.
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:03 pm, Anita Says:
Research to help the lives and well being of everybody is important no matter what. To back on some obsolete values does not further it.
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:06 pm, Texas_JAM Says:
Research will happen w/out Federal Funds. I don’t believe there were Federal Funds for Viagra’s research.
June 23rd, 2007 at 7:45 am, Kat Says:
“And Kat, how can an embryo donate itself of its own free will? And you mock my opinion? Perhaps the air is a bit thin up there on that pedestal.
Regardless, the condescending tone here is sickening.”
An embryo is NOT a life, it is an embryo.
Life does not begin till the heart beats at 18 days, and the brain makes it’s first wave at day 40.
The embryos are donated of free will by the mother.
She doesn’t need the embryos consent, because the embryo is not a live human being.
I’m not talking down my nose to you, or looking down from this pedestal I never asked to be placed on, I’m stating scientific facts about when life begins and how stem cells are used.
If people do not know the scientific facts, I have pointed those out.
I know the difference between an embryo and a human life.
I wish others did so we could get past people thinking that a donated embryo with full consent of the woman, is not abortion.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:47 am, Holly Brown Says:
I personally think that stem cell research is a wonderful thing that can cure so many things and as a president you should not let your own beliefs stop scientific research that could benefit so many people.
June 26th, 2007 at 7:00 am, SlithyToves Says:
I’m a few days late, but I’m coming down firmly on the side of research.
The question of when life begins is basically a personal belief, since there is no definitive answer (I personally hold the belief that life begins when the first breath of air is drawn, but I can easily see an argument to be made for when a fetus is viable outside the womb (minimum of 25 weeks or so)).
But, that isn’t part of the stem cell debate as these embryos are going to be destroyed regardless. The only question is are we going to let them be destroyed without offering other benefits to the human race.
Try as they might, anti-abortion supporters can’t get past the fact that fertility clinics only hold embryos for a relatively short period of time (usually only 5 years past the date of last contact from the parents, unless their contract specifically states a longer period). Also, the embryos can be destoyed earlier at the parents’ request. Thus, no matter what, the unused embryos are destined for the biohazard bin.
July 29th, 2007 at 5:03 pm, Bodybuilding Web Says:
We are in a representative democracy. The president doesn’t necessarily have to follow the will of the people everytime because then we wouldn’t have a presidency. I personally think stem cell research is going down the wrong path and is wrong. There is positive signs now in recent research, showing that you don’t need to destroy a embryo.