Stem Cell Veto

Bush vetoes bill aimed at promoting stem cell research

Story Highlights
• As promised, Bush vetoes stem cell research bill
• Bush signs executive order urging "ethically responsible" research in the field
• Embryonic stem cells hold potential to battle diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's
• GOP presidential hopefuls split on scope of federal involvement in the research


Of course he did, he would is too stupid to realize that the embryos in fertility clinic the are not used by the couples are thrown away.
He is too dim to understand that abortion is legal and that those too are thrown away.
What does he think, that doctors will suddenly stalk ladies in the night taking their unborn children like some fairy story?
Who knows what the drug and alcohol damaged brain of this superstitious lunatic truly envisions?
Unless, he is not that stupid... hard to say, one then must assume that he feels that these fetuses are better utilized thrown away than saving lives and/or ending suffering.
But, I don't think it is either.
He keeps bringing up the word "ethical", but he is of the ilk that do not work out their "ethics" on their own.
Thinking for one's self in his circles is a "sin"... thus we all pay... pay with the suffering of our loved ones. Their suffering and their death.
The allowing of this fool and his cronies to remain in office, our, as a nation, not making enough noise... not demanding that they pay for their continued crimes continues to cause American deaths.
Now it will do so well past his term, again.
Yet again, his presence in that home shames me.
He would rather people suffer and die than to have this tissue, this tissue that is already being thrown away with-or-without this bill, keep from being thrown away, him and those who wish this kind of action to continue.
Yes, I mean that literally.

[richlevy]

Huckabee was on Scarborough and stated that he didn't support the bill because it allowed embryos to be specifically grown for research. That wasn't my understanding. Either I'm wrong or he was lying.

Anyone see any specific wording to that effect or is this just more bullshit?
I have read nothing to that effect.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071900524.html

"Those families who wake up every morning to face another day with a deadly disease or a disability will not forget this decision by the president to stand in the way of sound science and medical research," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).

Some conservatives also criticized the veto. "I am pro-life, but I disagree with the president's decision," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.), a heart surgeon who is weighing a 2008 presidential run. "Given the potential of this research and the limitations of the existing [human embryonic stem cell] lines eligible for federally funded research, I think additional lines should be made available."

[wolf]

Adult stem cell research (which according to what I've read has lead to the only successful/promising lines of research) isn't affected by this bill, right?

In no way has adult stem cell research been the only promising research.
Please cite where you have read that.
The fact is that embryonic stem cells are far more effective and applicable to far more lines of research.

[wolf]

Harvard

"Adult stem cell research is important and must go forward," Eggan said. But embryonic stem cell research, while at an earlier stage of development, shows a potential for scientific and clinical breakthroughs that adult stem cell research lacks.

"Embryonic stem cells have great theoretical potential, but there have been problems in the laboratory. The cells are finicky, they're difficult to grow, it's difficult to get a pure culture, and there is a potential for tumor formation," he said.

On the other hand, he said that there have been promising developments in the use of adult stem cells in clinical applications, including tissue repair for stroke, spinal cord injuries, and heart damage. Prentice said that there have been 58 medical conditions in which the therapeutic benefit of adult stem cell treatment has been established, while no clinical benefits have been achieved so far as a result of embryonic stem cell research.



UC-Irvine

An article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences carries news of the use of adult human neural stem cells to successfully regenerate damaged spinal cord tissue in mice. The researchers, from the University of California Irvine Research Center, said that the treatment could hold great potential for new therapies to help those with spinal cord injuries. This study differs from others that have used human embryonic stem cells because the human neural stem cells that were used were not "coaxed" into becoming specific cell types before transplantation.



Overview on Adult Stem Cell Research from National Review

The pattern in the media reportage about stem cells is growing very wearisome. When a research advance occurs with embryonic stem cells, the media usually give the story the brass-band treatment. However, when researchers announce even greater success using adult stem cells, the media reportage is generally about as intense and excited as a stifled yawn.

As a consequence, many people in this country continue to believe that embryonic stem cells offer the greatest promise for developing new medical treatments using the body's cells — known as regenerative medicine — while in actuality, adult and alternative sources of stem cells have demonstrated much brighter prospects. This misperception has societal consequences, distorting the political debate over human cloning and embryonic-stem-cell research (ESCR) and perhaps even affecting levels of public and private research funding of embryonic and adult stem-cell therapies.



Sure, the potential is there for embryonic stem cell research, but it hasn't panned out at this point.

The reality should be that those who vote against this and their supporters should not be able to benefit from the research once it becomes viable.
Once they will start clamoring for its healing and the end to their suffering.
I wonder what their line would be then?

Those seemed to contradict themselves.
I have read quite different claims, most tend to prefer embryonic. If that were not the case, scientists would not keep asking for them. I am a member of a couple of stem-cell reading groups.

[Ibby]

But wolf, how much actual research has been done with embryonic stem cells?
Surely not as much as has been done with adult stem cells, for this very reason. It's easier, more acceptable, and more profitable to research adult stem cells because the government helps with that.

Human flight also showed little promise until the Wright brothers. You should never give up on research, especially research that could do much good, just because it's not showing promise fast enough for you or turning up quite as much gain as you expected. Embryonic stem cell research hasn't gotten nearly as much of a chance as it deserves, because of things like this.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Human flight also showed little promise until the Wright brothers.

Who did the work on their own dime... Please don't lower the Wright brothers to the level of those who live off government assistance.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Ibram

But wolf, how much actual research has been done with embryonic stem cells?

The United States is not the only source of research and research funding in the world.

[tw]

Originally Posted by wolf

The United States is not the only source of research and research funding in the world.

Which does nothing to explain why relgious beliefs are being used to stifle the advancement of mankind.

[piercehawkeye45]

Stem cell research is much more expensive than building an airplane.

[DanaC]

Besides....once the potential importance of the aeroplane had been grasped by the wider world, the field got a big influx of funding.

[Griff]

Stem cell research is an obvious good that will be privately funded if confiscated dollars are not part of the mix. Government funding discourages private investment.

It is not as simple as direct government grants, it also limits what public universities can do. This is not a tax argument Griff. OT.