Bush Vetoes Bill Expanding Funding of Embryonic Stem-Cell Research

President Bush vetoed his first bill today; the bill passed by Congress would ease limits on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. Despite the potential benefits of stem-cell research President Bush is opposed to the measure because it would kill embryos. Scientists believe stem cells from human embryos could hold the key to treatments and cures for disease. Pro-life advocates argue using the cells is the same as taking a life. The Senate voted 63-37 in favor of the bill on Tuesday, four votes short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override a veto. The House last year fell 50 votes short of a veto-proof margin when it passed the same bill, 238-194.



Personally I believe this bill should not have been vetoed; the benefits of embryonic stem-cell research look very promising. Countless people may continue to suffer because ideology has once again hindered the advancement of science. Even if you believe that using an embryo for such research is murder you should know that stopping potential cures from becoming reality is also murdering millions of people.

Related News Links:
www.msnbc.msn.com
www.cnn.com
www.foxnews.com


[edit on 19-7-2006 by WestPoint23]

There is quite a bit of bias in the introduction line, and obviously you haven't researched into adult stem cell research, which has provided more promising results than any results made by embryo stem research, which equals to zero, at least last time i checked.

There is also the fact that using embryo stem cells to help other people could very well result in the body of the patient rejecting the donated cells, meanwhile adult stem cells could be harvested from the same person having the problem, or a close relative, reducing considerably the possibility of the body rejecting the stem cells.



[edit on 19-7-2006 by Muaddib]

Ronald Reagan took a hardline against stem cell research. Ironically he likely prevented research which may have provided a treatment for his altzheimers. As a result he suffered needlessly. His wife Nancy now understands why this research needs to go forward.

The following are a few examples of what I am talking about.

Adult Stem Cell Research Shows Promising Results for Lupus Patients

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
February 1, 2006

Chicago, IL (LifeNews.com) -- In another breakthrough for adult stem cell research, scientists at Northwestern University have seen excellent results treating patients with severe lupus using their own stem cells.

ora.ra.cwru.edu...

To date, current research on embryonic stem cells has resulted in no promising results. Ironically, a leading pro-ESCR advocate is the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, but ESCR research has failed in fighting this disease.

www.lifeissues.org...



[edit on 19-7-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Df1

Ronald Reagan took a hardline against stem cell research. Ironically he likely prevented research which may have provided a treatment for his altzheimers. As a result he suffered needlessly. His wife Nancy now understands why this research needs to go forward.

If I remember correctly he was against embryo stem cell research, not against all stem cell research, unless i am wrong, and Nancy was more concerned about her husband than anything else, she still believes this probably because she thinks "there was a possibility", but the facts are that embryo stem cell research has not provided any breakthroughs, while adult stem cell research has.

[edit on 19-7-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally poster by Muaddib
There is quite a bit of bias in the introduction line, and obviously you haven't researched into adult stem cell research...

What bias would that be? I do admit I’m not that keen on everything surrounding Embryonic Stem-Cell research but I did manage to find something interesting. True adult stem-cell research has provided results and I expect if more research and studying was done on embryonic stem-cells the same type of results could be possible, IMO it has too great a potential to be dismissed.

Scientists have been able to do experiments with human embryonic stem cells (hESC) only since 1998, when a group led by Dr. James Thompson at the University of Wisconsin developed a technique to isolate and grow the cells. Moreover, Federal funds to support hESC research have been available since only August 9, 2001, when President Bush announced his decision on Federal funding for hESC research. Because many academic researchers rely on Federal funds to support their laboratories, they are just beginning to learn how to grow and use the cells. Thus, although hESC are thought to offer potential cures and therapies for many devastating diseases, research using them is still in its early stages.

Link

The bias would be that apparently you think the only excuse being made about embryo stem research is that "pro-life people are against it", but the facts are that embryo stem cell research has not provided any real results, while adult stem research has.

Using embryo stem cells in the body of another person would be almost the same as using an organ of a person that is not compatible with the patient.

BTW, there are several governments who have made research into embryo stem cell, but that i know of noone has brought forth any results.

[edit on 19-7-2006 by Muaddib]

Let me give you more evidence of why embryo stem cells shouldn't be used.

In general, embryonic and fetal stem cells are believed to be more versatile than adult stem cells. However, scientists are still working on developing proper conditions to differentiate embryonic stem cells into specialized cells. As embryonic stem cells grow very fast, scientists must be very careful in fully differentiating them into specialized cells. Otherwise, any remaining embryonic stem cells can grow uncontrolled and form tumors.

Assuming that the above obstacles can be overcome, new issues arise when the specialized cells (grown from stem cells) are implanted into a person. The cells must be integrated into the patient's own tissues and organs and "learn" to function in concert with the body's natural cells. Cardiac cells that beat in a cell culture, for example, may not beat in rhythm with a patient's own heart cells. And neurons injected into a damaged brain must become "wired into" the brain's intricate network of cells and their connections in order to work properly.

Yet another challenge is the phenomenon of tissue rejection. Just as in organ transplants, the body's immune cells will recognize transplanted cells as "foreign," setting off an immune reaction that could cause the transplant to fail and possibly endanger the patient. Cell recipients would have to take drugs to temporarily suppress their immune systems, which in itself could be dangerous.

www.isscr.org...

I always wondered why the people that are in favor of "embryo stem cell research" never post the above facts. i am not saying this because of you, but in general, even scientists who say "there is a possibility in embryo stem cell research" never explain, or even mention the facts.



[edit on 19-7-2006 by Muaddib]

BTW, one more thing i forgot to mention. Specific stem cells collected for the purpose of research, or even to implant in a patient, such as neurons, have to be collected from an embryo which has already formed a brain.

Muaddib do you agree that there is a possibility that embryonic stem-cells could provide cures to some current diseases? If the answer is yes then why do you oppose expanding research into it? I don’t think 8 years of limited research around the world is definitive enough to say, one way or another, how useful embryonic stem-cells are. Expanding research could prove whether claims made about embryonic stem-cells are pure fantasy or fact. Again the possible benefits are too great to not peruse this farther, that's what I have issue with Bush’s decision.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Specific stem cells collected for the purpose of research, or even to implant in a patient, such as neurons, have to be collected from an embryo which has already formed a brain.

The way I understand it is that you can use embryonic stem-cells to grow virtually any body tissue or cell that you want, so I don't know where you're going with this but in in that sense I wouldn’t consider harvesting neurons or nay other tissue to be morally significant or wrong.

Why bother with "possibilities" when adult stem cells have been the only ones which have provided breakthroughs in stem cell research?

With adult stem cells you avoid tissue rejection which comes with embryo stem cells, you also avoid the "real posibility of embryo stem cells turning into tumors" which has happened btw, and you also avoid the problems with certain stem cells from embryos not working properly, for example embryo stem cells injected in a heart or a brain.

There is a saying, "if it ain't broken, don't fix it". Adult stem cells have been the only ones giving real results, while embryo stem cells have given all the problems you can think of.

[edit on 19-7-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
..............
The way I understand it is that you can use embryonic stem-cells to grow virtually any body tissue or cell that you want, so I don't know where you're going with this but in in that sense I wouldn’t consider harvesting neurons or nay other tissue to be morally significant or wrong.

Since stem cells collected from an embryo to gather neurons has to come from a formed brain, you are talking about killing a human baby. it is not out of the womb but it is a baby. So at least in this case you are talking not only about an issue that is immoral, but it is completly wrong.

It should not be a political thing at all..

Private companies are doing embryonic stem cell research.
I'm sure that anyone if favor of such research could donate directly to such a place.

Some people just don't feel comfortable having their tax dollars spent on this kind of research.

Bush made the right decision (again).

I must agree that the potential benefits can not be ignored. However, in this day and age, to fund research in this arena would actually encourage abortions.

Obviously the only even remotely ethical route would be to use aborted embryos. Unfortunately many less than ethical doctors would encourage more patients to abort rather than seek counseling or other alternatives.

>
I cant speel.

[edit on 19-7-2006 by apc]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Let me give you more evidence of why embryo stem cells shouldn't be used.

These esteemed researchers disagree with you and the president on the subject. It makes much more sense to believe the scientists than the politicians in congress or the zealots infesting the white house that want to use this issue for political gain. These politicos know nothing about science and only care about getting more zealots elected.

Rove's negative appraisal of embryonic stem cell research - echoed by many opponents of funding for embryonic stem cells - is inaccurate, according to most stem cell scientists,

Dr. Michael Clarke, associate director of the stem cell institute at Stanford University

If opponents of embryonic research object on moral grounds, "I'm willing to live with that," Clarke said, though he disagrees. But, he said, "I'm not willing to live with statements that are misleading."

Dr. Markus Grompe, director of the stem cell center at the Oregon Health and Science University

But Grompe said there is "no factual basis to compare the promise" of adult stem cells and cells taken from embryos.

"I think it's a problem when (opponents of embryonic research) make a scientific argument as opposed to stating the real reason they are opposed - which is (that) it's a moral, ethical problem."

Last week, the journal Science published a letter from three researchers criticizing the claim that adult stem cells are preferable to embryonic stem cells. The authors included Dr. Steven Teitelbaum of Washington University in St. Louis, who has used adult stem cells to treat bone diseases in children. The authors wrote that the exaggerated claims for adult stem cells "mislead laypeople and cruelly deceive patients."

One of the scientists on Prentice's list is Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg, a pediatric hematologist at Duke University Medical Center who has used umbilical cord blood to treat Tay-Sachs disease and other rare disorders. Kurtzberg said it's wrong to see stem cell science as a competition with only one winner.

"....adult stem cell research, which has provided more promising results than any results made by embryo stem research, which equals to zero, at least last time I checked.

There is also the fact that using embryo stem cells to help other people could very well result in the body of the patient rejecting the donated cells, meanwhile adult stem cells could be harvested from the same person having the problem, or a close relative, reducing considerably the possibility of the body rejecting the stem cells.

REPLY: Exactamundo.... which is why Bush increaded funding for research into something that we already know works, with less complications or possible detriments to the patient.

Discoveries made using adult stem cell research: 70+

Discoveries made using embryonic stem cells: 0

Stick to what works.

Let me post another statistic for you.

Adult Stem Cell Research = 40+ Years with Federal Funding.
Embryonic Stem Cell Research = 8 Years with Limited Funding.

Unfortunately embryonic stem cell funding may be cut in Europe too. :shk:

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Germany pressed its EU partners to ban European funding for embryonic stem-cell research, a day after President George W. Bush vetoed a bill that would have expanded such work in the United States.

"The European Union science programme should not be used to give financial incentives to kill embryos," German Research Minister Annette Schavan wrote in a letter seen by Reuters on Thursday before a meeting on EU science funding on Monday.

Link

[edit on 20-7-2006 by WestPoint23]

Let's deal with statistics, for a moment.

What are the statistics for raw meat that has been rotten for 3 days, eaten raw, NOT getting you sick?
Are you willing to take that chance?

Exponentially often, you DIE when you reject a liver/kidney/etc. It's very rare that they even bother to try a second transplant.

If it can be grown from your own stem cells, you exponentially decrease the likelyhood of even needing to be on Anti-rejection meds, let alone dying from the transplant.

So, are we going to fund/allow research that certainly can kill you, or something that could help you live? Let's go with PROBABILITIES, not possibilities. If we are reasonably sure that we've exausted Adult stem-cell research, we can move on to the idea of killing little babies.

Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: Exactamundo.... which is why Bush increaded funding for research into something that we already know works, with less complications or possible detriments to the patient.

The next time you or your family require medical attention I presume that you will call a politician instead of a doctor, since obviously you believe that they are better qualified to evaluate the detriments and complications associated with various medical treatments than a doctor. As for me I will stick with a doctor for evaluation of such medical treatments.

Originally posted by df1

Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: Exactamundo.... which is why Bush increaded funding for research into something that we already know works, with less complications or possible detriments to the patient.

The next time you or your family require medical attention I presume that you will call a politician instead of a doctor, since obviously you believe that they are better qualified to evaluate the detriments and complications associated with various medical treatments than a doctor. As for me I will stick with a doctor for evaluation of such medical treatments.

REPLY: I was referring to medical history and advancements, which were done by doctors and researchers. Bush relied on reports from the entire medical community, of which your references are a very minor percentage.