It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


President's Veto on Stem Cell Research

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 08:25 PM
Here it is for all to read.

Like most people I am torn on this issue. My problem with it is the lack of empirical evidence that shows the value of the research.

Message to the House of Representatives


I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 810, the "Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005."

Like all Americans, I believe our Nation must vigorously pursue the tremendous possibilities that science offers to cure disease and improve the lives of millions. Yet, as science brings us ever closer to unlocking the secrets of human biology, it also offers temptations to manipulate human life and violate human dignity. Our conscience and history as a Nation demand that we resist this temptation. With the right scientific techniques and the right policies, we can achieve scientific progress while living up to our ethical responsibilities.

In 2001, I set forth a new policy on stem cell research that struck a balance between the needs of science and the demands of conscience. When I took office, there was no Federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. Under the policy I announced 5 years ago, my Administration became the first to make Federal funds available for this research, but only on embryonic stem cell lines derived from embryos that had already been destroyed. My Administration has made available more than $90 million for research of these lines. This policy has allowed important research to go forward and has allowed America to continue to lead the world in embryonic stem cell research without encouraging the further destruction of living human embryos.

H.R. 810 would overturn my Administration's balanced policy on embryonic stem cell research. If this bill were to become law, American taxpayers for the first time in our history would be compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos. Crossing this line would be a grave mistake and would needlessly encourage a conflict between science and ethics that can only do damage to both and harm our Nation as a whole.

Advances in research show that stem cell science can progress in an ethical way. Since I announced my policy in 2001, my Administration has expanded funding of research into stem cells that can be drawn from children, adults, and the blood in umbilical cords with no harm to the donor, and these stem cells are currently being used in medical treatments. Science also offers the hope that we may one day enjoy the potential benefits of embryonic stem cells without destroying human life. Researchers are investigating new techniques that might allow doctors and scientists to produce stem cells just as versatile as those derived from human embryos without harming life. We must continue to explore these hopeful alternatives, so we can advance the cause of scientific research while staying true to the ideals of a decent and humane society.

I hold to the principle that we can harness the promise of technology without becoming slaves to technology and ensure that science serves the cause of humanity. If we are to find the right ways to advance ethical medical research, we must also be willing when necessary to reject the wrong ways. For that reason, I must veto this bill.



July 19, 2006.

source :

I find a lot of wisdom in these words.


ATS associated thread :

mod edit to use external quote code, please review this link

[edit on 19-7-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 08:31 PM
The truth behind the Vito.

Bush is not after making religious rights happy . . . and his fake stance on life is nothing but a fake.

His truth alliance is with the corporate world that rules the health care business and the pharmaceutical empire.

Stem cell research is the nemesis to them.

If cures are find to long term illnesses that make pharmaceuticals billions then they will go out of business.

Pharmaceuticals are not there to find cures they are for profits on medications to treat illnesses.

For each long term illness is a long term profit.

So is nothing about, fetuses, or killing babies like many misguiding sites are trying to push to the lest educated out there, is all about a danger to one of the biggest money making pot in the US.

Health care

posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 08:52 PM
I respect your opinion.

I do however completely disagree.

President Bush's convictions are very well known and documented as evidenced by his opponents use of them in the negative at every given chance.

Without substantiated evidence, I can not see any reason to doubt what the President has said.

This was his FIRST use ever of the veto. That goes a long way to indicate his regards for the issue.


posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 09:54 PM
Its a touchy issue, playing god on one sense but creating methods of healing and cure on the other hand.

If we could create such secure methods in which scientists ONLY research to create cures for serious illnesses then I dont see why we shouldnt go down that path.

Why have we got this mythic idea of RELIGION so embedded in our minds, it restricts our research into scientific methods of CURE.

Religion is the DEVIL

posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 10:13 PM
While I am not sure that Religion is the Devil...

I am also not sure that we should not go ahead with "some" limited research.

I think some fear is that it would develop into humans being impregnated solely for the stem cells. Creating a kind of human slave market for research.


posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 10:16 PM
Marg is right.

Once again George Bush shows the American people how deeply he cares about George Bush.

posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 11:13 PM

I just wished he and politicians like him would write their own speeches, damn it.

The employment of speech writers just annoys me to death!

posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 11:23 PM
In regards to speachwriters,
I agree.

The man is elected president.
Let the MAN speak for the issues.

Ultimately when the Crapolla hits the fan, its the PRESIDENT that makes the decisions.

Imagine if PRIOR to the elections, a law was instated saying candidates must be purely SPEAKING for themselves.

Would bush of been elected?

Atleast he is conistent.

Gay Marriage and Stem Cell research.. he truley is thinking religously.

It sucks because I agree with a ban on gay marriage,
but believe if helping the human race destroy ailments requires stem cell research, then do it. Why hestitiate? if we are solving human CRISIS research away.

Create strict enough laws and labs to maintain ethics is upheld.

Why can we research the deadliest of viruses in hiddden labs and ensure there quality control, but when it comes to SAVING human lives rather than finding ways to DESTROY them, we seem to hit barriers.

posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 11:41 PM
Oh yea, the speechwriting issue just shows that we have the wrong men in office. And it's corrupt, too.

Talking of wrong men.. why did 51% of voting Americans want to uphold the faux Monarchy? Isn't the whole point of the states to get away from such a power base? Electing a President's son, just because he is the son, is one of the most undemocratic things I've ever heard - and yet people don't question it. Very dumb if you ask me.

posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 12:05 AM
Aren't ALL government officials in high places and sensitive positions having their mental health evaluated? Perhaps I'm missing something here, but why should the POTUS be any different in that regard? If there was a shadow of a doubt before that this joker was mental, the light has been shone upon it after his latest stunt. If the White House argument is that our Nation has a historically strong ethic regarding human life, let's have a history lesson then: the US Government was the first to launch a systematic scientific campaign of eugenics, used against Indians and others, well into the 20th century. Scientists employed by the Military performed perverse experiments in mind control (MK Ultra) and used its own soldiers as guinea pigs in the '___'/halluncinogen trials, in the '50s and '60s. Intelligence continues to facilitate the drug trade retarding the development of the minority and youth communities while conducting psy-ops to cover the rest. Finally, if this CIC, this Clown-in-Charge, views our troops dying in the desert as a sacrifice for the greater good, why does he then disagree with the majority of scientists, philosophers, the Congress, and the people that this research should go on?

Maybe the Religious Right "should stop doing this stuff and then it's over".

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 12:07 AM
Just a bit of insight into the kind of work people are doing.

Yehoash Raphael, Ph.D., directs the Otopathology Laboratory at the Kresge Hearing Research Institute. Dr. Raphael is The R. Jamison and Betty Williams Professor of Otolaryngology. Research interests in the lab include:

(a) repair and regeneration in the inner ear
(b) tissue engineering technologies as applied to the cochlea and vestibular organs
(c) hereditary sensorineural deafness

U-M research findings could unlock future advances in the treatment of hearing loss

Millions of people with the most common type of hearing loss — caused by aging, infections, drugs, diseases or exposure to loud sounds — are one step closer to an effective treatment, thanks to scientists at the University of Michigan Medical School.

In research published in the March 1 issue of Nature Medicine, U-M scientists used gene therapy to grow new auditory hair cells and restore hearing in deafened guinea pigs. This was the first successful restoration of auditory hair cells in an adult animal, and it made international news.

For more info google "Atoh1"

[edit on 20-7-2006 by FallenFromTheTree]

posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 12:15 AM

Originally posted by Dubious_Skunk
Maybe the Religious Right "should stop doing this stuff and then it's over".

Haha, great twist on Bush's words!

Someone should send him that in a letter, lol.

posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 12:18 AM

Originally posted by semperfortis
Like most people I am torn on this issue. My problem with it is the lack of empirical evidence that shows the value of the research.

Excluding, of course, the people that have been paralyzed and have nerves regenerated from stem cells, etc etc.

This is a new technology that is underfunded and legally hampered. How much money did we dump into nukes before there was a bomb? And that was entirely theoretical, that you could split an 'atom'.

I find a lot of wisdom in these words.

Bush is, simply, clueless on science. I don't want to pretend that I am some master of science or something like that, but Bush clearly isn't the 'go to guy' on science. He isnt' even sure if men evolved from a chimp-like ancestor or not, so how can anyone give any weight to his ideas about something as complex as stem cell research???

so we can advance the cause of scientific research while staying true to the ideals of a decent and humane society.

There is nothing indecent in using clumps of cells slated for destruction for research.

H.R. 810 would overturn my Administration's balanced policy on embryonic stem cell research.

There is nothing balanced about the policy. It prevents federal funding on new stem cell lines. It does nothing to stop embryos from being used, it merely means that federal funding isn't going to be given out, because he is uncomfortable with it.

A thousand years ago, it was immoral and unethical to dissect a human corpse for research. That was silly. So is this policy.

posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 01:28 AM
What it means at the worst, is that Universities who accept Federal funding ( as most do )
could have their funding revoked if they do " unacceptable " stem cell research at their facitlies.

posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 11:27 AM

I'm not sure I descended from a "chimp like" creature either. (I wonder about some on here though)

I also do not consider myself Einstein"ian" in my thought process. Luckily, much like President Bush, it is not my job to "know" everything, it is my job to make sure my people do.

If it was a qualifier for President to know all about the significant scientific discoveries of the day, I fear we would have far, far fewer candidates, if any.


posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 01:57 PM
My daughter is doing federal funded research in what she calls the most amazing facility she has even been, with equipment that she was until now only see in pictures and heard about by her professors.

She has quite a opportunity to work now with scientist. . . from Atlanta . . . she tells me that the opportunities to find cures is incredible. . . but the government monitor every single thing they do with cells. . .

She said everything is so control that most of the people she is working with can do miracles with the cells if they were allowed but they can also lose their grants if trying.

Yes is potential with the stem cell but government doesn't want too.

like I said is not about fetuses, or killing babies or trying to make religious rights happy . . . is all about money, control and who is lobbying to keep the stem cell research hindered.

posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 03:36 PM
We couldve saved Superman

Why do scientists want to use stem cell lines?

Once a stem cell line is established from a cell in the body, it is essentially immortal, no matter how it was derived. That is, the researcher using the line will not have to go through the rigorous procedure necessary to isolate stem cells again. Once established, a cell line can be grown in the laboratory indefinitely and cells may be frozen for storage or distribution to other researchers.

Stem cell lines grown in the lab provide scientists with the opportunity to "engineer" them for use in transplantation or treatment of diseases. For example, before scientists can use any type of tissue, organ, or cell for transplantation, they must overcome attempts by a patient's immune system to reject the transplant. In the future, scientists may be able to modify human stem cell lines in the laboratory by using gene therapy or other techniques to overcome this immune rejection. Scientists might also be able to replace damaged genes or add new genes to stem cells in order to give them characteristics that can ultimately treat diseases.


How can this even possibly be a bad thing? Do I need to bust out the MC Hawkings?

posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 04:27 PM

Originally posted by semperfortis
Like most people I am torn on this issue. My problem with it is the lack of empirical evidence that shows the value of the research.

The research has not been banned; the government is simply not funding it. The free market is still permitted to work with it, investors invest in it, but Uncle Sam isn't going to pay for it. Why, if the government won't pay for it, does it mean the research has been stopped?

It is under funded because investors have seen results with adult stem cells, but little successful results with embryonic stem cells. That's why the researchers need government funding -- very few investors are willing to invest in a technology or research that yields little results while a similar technology capable of doing the same thing has been.

new topics


log in