Yesterday, the Senate passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act with 63 votes, joining the house in its support for stem cell research. Scientists have shown how stem cells can help paralyzed mice walk and can create T-cells which could be used in the fight against AIDS. The President has said he will veto the bill and it does not appear the Congress will have the votes to override the veto.
Since there are now only 21 stem cell lines eligible for federal research funding, all of which are contaminated, this bill would allow American Scientists to research uncontaminated stem cell lines from the some 400,000 excess embryos in fertility clinics, many of which will be discarded. People would be able to donate these embryos to research that could lead to cures for medical conditions that affect tens of millions of Americans - conditions such as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS), diabetes, and those who have suffered spinal cord injuries.
While some social conservatives have tried to use this as yet another tool in the culture wars, claiming it divides Americans, the facts just don't back it up. 70% of Americans support the legislation, probably one of the reasons it sailed through Congress while immigration reform continues to stagger. Many of the legislation's supporters are not what you would call "liberals:" Orrin Hatch, Bill Frist and Nancy Reagan, to name a few.
Since research first unearthed the power of stem cells to aid in the cure of dozens of diseases, including Alzheimer's, Mrs. Reagan has begged her husband's party to support critical research into therapeutic stem cell cloning. The last ten years have sensitized Mrs. Reagan and her family to the suffering millions of American families face every year from Alzheimer's.
Mrs. Reagan speaks bravely of the pain she and the former President went through in the years leading to his death. Alzheimer's begins with mild memory loss and slowly progresses to the loss of virtually all memory and control of bodily functions. Mrs. Reagan's honest description of the anguish of a long and gradual twilight is perhaps one of her greatest contributions.
She joined hundreds of scientific, medical, and religious authorities in asking for politicians to support this legislation: "Science has presented us with a hope called stem cell research, which may provide our scientists with answers that have so long been beyond our grasp. I just don't see how we can turn our backs on this," she said.
After renaming Washington National Airport and the largest Federal building in the Capital after Ronald Reagan, conservatives set out on many "Reagan Legacy Projects." Grover Norquist made waves with the suggestion that Ronald Reagan's face be added to Mount Rushmore and put on the $10 bill and dime. He also proposed constructing a Ronald Reagan Memorial on the National Mall and erecting a statue of him in every county in the United States. Nancy Reagan said, "I do not support this and I am certain Ronnie would not." While she may not love the push to idolize her Ronnie on coins we do know she supports honoring him by funding research to cure the disease that killed him.
Ronald Reagan's greatest legacy may well be the no-nonsense approach of Nancy Reagan to his illness.
Before the leftists at Citizen Hunter mislead the public with false claims about embryonic stem cell research, a breath of fresh air and truth is in order.
Ms Colgan writes that the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act "would allow American Scientists to research uncontaminated stem cell lines from the some 400,000 excess embryos in fertility clinics ... that could lead to cures for medical conditions that affect tens of millions of Americans - conditions such as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS), diabetes, and those who have suffered spinal cord injuries."
The operative words in the above quote are "could lead" and in the interest of presenting BOTH sides of the question, please consider the following information from the American Life League (ALL): "There are those in the government and scientific community who say more money must be spent on human embryonic stem cell research because it holds the most promise for helping people with conditions such as Alzheimer's disease.
"However, adult stem cells have been used successfully for decades. Bone marrow transplants, for instance, help people every day. There are more than 100 conditions including leukemia, immune system and other blood disorders, cancers and autoimmune diseases that respond well when adult stem cell therapy is used.
"Research involving human embryonic stem cells has thus far been unsuccessful in the quest to develop therapeutic treatments. It is speculated that those who support human embryonic stem cell research are clamoring loudly for taxpayer dollars because private companies know human embryonic stem cell research is neither worth their time nor their money.
"The popular plea is that human embryonic stem cell research will cure Alzheimer's disease. However, Alzheimer's researcher Ned Potter said this research would not help the Alzheimer's patient at all. It is nerve cells that cause the problem because they lose their ability to connect with each other. These embryonic stem cells are not the ones needed.
"Far too many reports of possible treatment for diseases are false. Media accounts simply parrot fake science. It is misleading, and could lead to the deaths of millions of innocent human beings if this type of research is allowed to move forward."
Enough said!
Posted by: George Tomezsko at July 19, 2006 01:59 PMUpdate: The President did in fact veto the bill. The embryos funded by the bill were “created for the purposes of in vitro fertilization. It is important to note that these embryos are slated to be discarded
Now to George's point. I have spent the last few years thinking about my position on this very impertinent and complex issue. Because of my faith the opinion that I arrived at was far from easy. I, at one point was very encouraged by the work with adult stem cells (which I would read about in my Catholic Standard and Times) and wondered if we had to wade into an issue that brings up some moral, spiritual, and ethically questions--the assurances and protections in this bill made me feel very comfortable with the ethical implications.
When Karl Rove told the Denver Post's editorial board the other day that adult stem cell was far more promising than embryonic stem cell. The comment drew intense criticism from the scientific community. Dr. Michael Clarke, who did a study that is oft cited for the promise of adult stem cell, said that it was "simply not true" to make that claim and that "there was no factual basis to compare the promise." He went on to say that if people oppose the practice for moral reasons he can understand that and deal with it, but that "he was not willing to live with statements that are misleading."
Killing children on the PROMISE of some future benefit is ridiculous the only success so far has been with adult stem cells. There has been no success with embryonic stem cells so far, just a lot of hype.
Even if they did provide some benefit it is still morally wrong to destroy one human being in the hopes of improving the lives of some other human being.
It is the moral responsibility of the stronger members of society to protect the weaker and more vulnerable members, not to prey on them and exploit them
Posted by: Kevin at July 19, 2006 04:40 PMI think that maybe if someone in my family was in need of a liver from someone who had just died, I would be very grateful. If the embryos are going to be discarded, the first question I would ask is why? Why are we discarding them? Where did they come from? How come they were never used? But I think that like the liver from a person that was basically dead. It is the same thing. Both are helpless, but both helping someone. I think that the more science advances, the more will it be able to sooth my Christian conscience. But unless I receive good answers to my questions above, I am conflicted.
Posted by: bjg at July 19, 2006 05:14 PMContrary to what one poster said, no one is killing children on the "promise" of future benefits. The embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, so why on Earth can't we do research on them? The veto was despicable.
Posted by: Jack Davis at July 19, 2006 08:18 PMThis is the tragic result of in vitro fertilization. There should't be frozen embryos to begin with. In vitro fertilization was a mistake that this country allowed and it has led to this debate. Embryos should never be destroyed and it would be wrong to do research on them as a poster has mentioned just because we have them in clinics. The end does not justify the means. It is a hard truth to accept for many in our society, especially those with illness.
Posted by: Rafael at July 20, 2006 12:15 AMUpdate: House Fails to Override Stem Cell Veto
George T.
You've done it again. I am now convinced that if I am not sure how I stand on an issue, all I have to do is wait for George to speak out, and then I know where I don't stand.
In the 1950s, Jonas Salk thought he "could" find a cure to polio -- the operative word being "could." Well, guess what George T., he did find a cure.
Bush's position on this issue is not scientific it is political. Politicians should stay out of science. Unfortunately, the George Bush's of this world try to impose their morality upon us all. Let the scientists figure this one out, not the power hungry politicians who try to shore up their base by advancing a pure political/non-scientific point of view.
Posted by: harold at July 20, 2006 04:07 PMHey Blair, Englands a big country. China's big too. I like coke, but only if it's diet. I like cold pizza. Think I wanna veto that stem cell thing. Been thinking about it alot. What's gotten into Iran's shorts? Syria's gotta get this Hezbolah thing under control, they say the word - it's fixed. Hey Blair, Englands a big country.
Posted by: kahuna at July 21, 2006 10:06 AMWe definitely should use the existing stem cell lines if they are going to be destroyed anyway. I do not believe in harvesting anything human. But like a poster said before, it is like using an organ from another to help save a life, and that is a very moral thing to do.
Posted by: Joe at July 21, 2006 11:29 AMDear Harold:
I am glad I help you solve your problem as to where you stand on issues, in this case, federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. But I'm afraid I must go a little further.
Unfortunately, Harold, it is NOT the George Bushes of this world try to impose their morality upon us all. For the past forty or so years, that has been done by secular leftists who, guided by false notions of freedom and progress, refuse to concede the point that human life is sacred, and who have so dominated popular thought, culture and politics that even science has been made subservient to these ideological goals.
What really gets the goats of individuals on your side of the political spectrum is that your cherished notions are being questioned by ever-larger numbers of people, and we are now beginning to flex our political muscles. In short, your "all is relative, all is permitted, the highest good is choice" jig is now up.
While I can agree with you that we should "let the scientists figure this one out" the surest way to achieve this is when science is left in private hands and scientific research is privately funded.
"all is relative, all is permitted, the highest good is choice"
GT: What the heck are you talking about?
For all those who are angry that Mr. Bush vetoed this bill, you can certainly invest your own money to fund private research on ESCs.
No wait, Bush made it illegal to conduct research on ESCs...NOT!!!
No wait, Bush is forcing his religious beliefs on the rest of the country...NOT!!!
No wait, Bush is against science...NOT!!!
No wait, Bush has funded stem cell research more than any other president...YES!!!
Posted by: antitrust at July 21, 2006 02:42 PMTo bt,
George is afraid of what he and his cohorts term as "moral relativism." What he is really afarid of is the freedom to choose to live your own life the way you want to live it. To George, we can only be happy if someone shoves their sense of moral superiority down our throats.
Unfortunately, that won't get you too many votes. So what the conservatives have done is they have changed the terminology. In an Orwellian twist they tell us black is white.
For those of us who preach a live and let live philosphy, the George T's of this world are telling us that we are forcing our beliefs on people by letting them live the lives they want to live. It all becomes "moral relativism," and that is evil. In their world, we can only be truly free if we conform to their absolute views on what is right and what is wrong.
With regard to private funding of this research, that is exactly what George W. Bush wants. That way, the wealthy drug companies can make huge profits from any of the advances they make.
To antitrust: "Bush is not forcing his religious beliefs on the rest of the country?" I guess you missed the news reports on his unprecedented support for a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage.
Posted by: Norton the Blogger at July 21, 2006 03:12 PMInteresting article on how the Stem Cell Veto may impact 2006 elections:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13973858/site/newsweek/
Posted by: Flavia at July 22, 2006 11:07 AMI just read a heartfelt article where the author wrote: "No president can veto the will of people’s hearts" concerning the recent Stem Cell Veto. It is not suprising that the author felt strongly about the subject, as her father was afflicted with Alzheimers, a disease that scientist, with the help of stem cell research, may be able to someday eradicate.
It is also unfortunately not suprising that on the same day the veto was done behind closed doors, the administration announced a meeting they will have between last season's Fox American Idol contestants and the president. Maybe some popularity will rub off.
I have to mention both happenings on the same comment only because it is bizarre that we are in the middle of a never-ending war, the Middle East is exploding, a popular bill has been vetoed, and meanwhile the WH is playing center stage for an American Idol PR stunt.
Maybe they think we really don't care about the issues we talk about. Or maybe PR stunts are the order of the day. Whichever the case may be, it is my sincere hope that citizens will keep the pressure on the leaders so they can quit the PR and start listening to "the will of the people's hearts."
Posted by: Joe at July 22, 2006 12:53 PMTo err is human, to err on the side of human life is devine. This is at the root of the anti-embryonic stem cell research position.
I would add that it is human nature for a grieving spouse (Nancy Reagan)or relative to gravitate emotionally, irrationally and thoughtlessly toward any prospect bearing, however fantastically, promise to add years to her husband's life at the expense of exterminating (potential) human life.
Posted by: Joe at July 25, 2006 02:02 PMPresident Bush’s stem cell veto has "had the unintended consequence of drawing state money into the contentious field,” as Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) and Rod Blagojevich (D-IL) backed millions of dollars in grants to stem cell research.
Posted by: Flavia at July 27, 2006 10:36 AMNoticed that development. History may just regard this veto as just a small roadbump that science encounters from time to time.
Posted by: joe at July 27, 2006 12:33 PMPresident Bush's restriction on federal stem cell research funding "has created a logistical nightmare for science." "Researchers who study both federally approved and unapproved stem cells have had to buy duplicate equipment to conduct their experiments, then set up elaborate systems to keep their work completely separate." The situation "puts U.S. researchers at a disadvantage." (American Progress)
Posted by: Flavia at August 9, 2006 02:14 PM