Bush Will Veto Stem Cell Research
According to this article, the POTUS will veto any bill that trys to increase federal funding on stem cell research. I agree with him on this. There are private donars that can fund this research, not to meantion the fact that we have seen no conclusive indication that it is a viable means to a cure.
Scientists view embryonic stem cells as promising in the treatment of paralysis and many diseases because the cells can re-create themselves and have the potential to turn into any tissue or organ. Colonies or “lines” derived from adult stem cells are much less versatile, scientists say.
The legislation in question, which the House has passed, would allow federal funding for research on stem cell lines derived from frozen embryos that are stored at fertility clinics and slated for destruction. The president’s policy allows for federal funding of research only on stem cell lines that existed as of Aug. 9, 2001, the date he announced his policy. Bush said such a policy was reasonable because additional embryos would not have to be destroyed to create stem cells.
In the past 6 years, where is the data to support more funding?
July 18, 2006 - 10:58 AM on July 18th, 2006
Bush is just delaying the inevitable.
If it’s not him, it’ll be the next president…congress and the American people already overwhelmingly want this research to move forward.
The US Government WILL fund this kind of research; it’ll only be a matter of time before it happens. Support for this is bi-partisan. Red state and Blue state are united on this issue.
I wonder if the votes are there for a veto over-ride?
July 18, 2006 - 11:58 AM on July 18th, 2006
Oh yes, they want it, they want it ahoved in and broken off don’t they?
Too bad they aren’t told the full story by the promoters.
In Kalifornia a couple of years ago, there was an initiative to issue $300M in bonds to fund stem cell (fsc) research. What the promoters didn’t tell the voters was:
1. It was going to fund fetal stem cell research, which so far has shown little promise and nothing but failure.
2. The private companies that had been spending money on fsc didn’t want to spend any more, because there just wasn’t enough of a probability of success and return on investment.
3. So they cooked up the idea of this initiative. Sucker the voters into funding it with tax dollars. If it panned out, great, they’d make millions. If it didn’t pan out, what the hell, it wasn’t their money.
The ads promoting it were full of optimism and glee. “Think of the wonderful new breakthroughs” they lied, knowing well that at best it is a very long shot.
They also forgot to mention that there was absolutely nothing in the initiative that addressed ownership of intellectual property. I know, because I read the initiative. So in other words, the taxpayers fund it, and if it pans out, the researchers and their companies file for the patents and make millions or billions off of it. And they taxpayers? They get the bill!
What deal! Woooo-hooo!
Now how many voters would have gone for this had they known the full story?
July 18, 2006 - 04:01 PM on July 18th, 2006
The bill passed 63-37, four votes short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override Bush’s veto. The president left little doubt he would reject the bill despite late appeals on its behalf from fellow Republicans Nancy Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
July 18, 2006 - 04:14 PM on July 18th, 2006
“The bill passed 63-37, four votes short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override Bush’s veto.”
Hmmm.
No matter, the next congress or maybe even the next president will sign this into law.
The government will fund this research…the bi-partisan support for it is just overwhelming. It’s only a matter of time.
July 18, 2006 - 04:36 PM on July 18th, 2006
“…which so far has shown little promise and nothing but failure.”
I understand your point, but that’s using the wrong argument. Do a little research on penicillin and you’ll know why.
It was tried and tested on many animals, and none of the animals had the same results. It even had to be administered in different ways, such as rubbing on the skin, ingesting orally, etc. So research on that “miracle” drug got us nowhere. It was only known for sure if it would work when it was finally given to humans, without any conclusive proof that it would work.
I know penicillin is vastly different from stem cell research, but I hope you understand what I mean when I say that inconclusive research means nothing.
July 18, 2006 - 04:39 PM on July 18th, 2006
I am all for the research, I do think that better things are accomplished in a more productive manner when the government is left out. Imagine the space program without the binds of government. Imagine the technologies we wouldn’t have today if private companies and stockholders interests were left out. If we want to see any meaningful advances in genetic research we would be better off letting profitable well run companies lead the way and leave the government bureacracy out. For this reason I hope for a veto. I don’t think for a second Bush is against the research. I think he is against the government funding.
July 18, 2006 - 07:12 PM on July 18th, 2006
6- Well said Aaron…
I think there is a reason that this article only mentioned paralysis though…first of all, there will be limited cases in which paralysis may be reversable..and Christopher Reeve was not one of them…Secondly, Many of the other diseases that are being researched are not even looking to stem cells for a cure..Many of the greatest break throughs in our research are dunded through private foundations..this is nothing more than a political tool…
July 19, 2006 - 01:52 AM on July 19th, 2006
Well remember if John Kerry had been elected President, Christopher Reeve and many others would have just gotten right up out of their wheelchairs. Remember that?
Alyssa, that’s true (except for the Strategic Defense Initiative, where Liberals assert that it will never work). But my main point is that private industry wants to use tax dollars to fund research with a very risky, low-probability ROI. Then they’ll gladly exploit it if it works.
I say let them put their money into it. Or assign all IP developed to the Gov’t. No exceptions.
July 20, 2006 - 09:26 PM on July 20th, 2006
A quote from San Francisco Liberal:
“A dead baby is a dead baby.
I don’t care if it’s mother is a jew, an arab, or a christian.
it’s still a dead baby.”
So much for all that concern over innocent lives…
July 21, 2006 - 04:32 AM on July 21st, 2006
“”A dead baby is a dead baby.
I don’t care if it’s mother is a jew, an arab, or a christian.
it’s still a dead baby.â€
Unless that baby is an unwanted fetus. Why, then, bring it on, baby!
July 21, 2006 - 05:42 AM on July 21st, 2006
A Kerry nuance! I didn’t know when I’d see one of those again.
July 21, 2006 - 06:56 AM on July 21st, 2006
10.
Bang!!! Another one, out of the park Robert!!!!!
they don’t seem to care about those million dismembered babies that are killed every year.