Surprised no one has posted about this yet.
What are peoples’ thoughts (without it turning into another tit for tat religious debate)?
I should think the parents of those kids he had at the address would think differently about stem cell research if their child ended up with diabetes or parkinsons.
I don’t think Bush has the power to stop all stem cell reseach.
He vetoed expanded federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
exactly. stem cell research and all its benefits to humankind will continue, with or without endorsement by the US government. numerous other countries fund this sort of research, and not to mention a huge many private companies are already working with stem cells, and even if the federal government doesnt fund it, the stategovernments still can. research will eventually yeild the huge benefits that are expected, its just a matter of time.
If I weren’t completely numb right now, I’d be outraged that Bush hasn’t vetoed a single bill UNTIL NOW… because this particular bill doesn’t jive with his RELIGIOUS BELIEFS! I wonder what church he attends, to worship the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR?!
…And place. Several California universities are set up to do some of this research. The less we fund it here, the more likely this research will be concluded in other countries. But under our current administration we seem better geared toward ultra-expensive military action than we are toward smart investments in our future.
Everyone is entitled to vote based on their religious beliefs. But yes it was a shock to hear that this was his first-ever veto.
Privately funded research continues, albeit at a low level, and it’s pretty clear that it will not be outlawed in the United States for the next few years. Judging by the way bipartisan support has been growing, I doubt that federally funded stem cell research is more than a decade away at this time.
johnfoss has a decent point - and it holds true across the board. The US is losing its edge in scientific R&D. Some blame the current administration’s war on science, but the problem has been building over a much longer period.
This article is two years old, but it applies nonetheless:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/03/science/03RESE.html?ex=1398916800&en=f37a1c973069b2a8&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND
This veto is just another failure in a long legacy of political ineptitude.
Funding research might not be a good use of tax payer money anyways… there should be enough demand for the results for private companies to invest in it. The main problem with this though is that the government is sending an anti stem cell research message to the private companies and showing that it’s riskier to go into this kind of research due to the possibility of it being illegal in the future.
I’d be curious to see what focus the research funded privately has compared to what would have been government funded. Privately funded research is great, but will often only happen when a commercial product can be produced in the relatively near future. Government funded research can be focused on more general R&D that will benefit the country (and world) in the long term, but that might not make any money for a long time.
John
(starting a government funded research degree shortly)
I don’t know if the situation is the same in the US, but in the UK the pharmacutical industry is big business with big bucks and not a small amount of power. If stem cell therapy were successful then it may reduce the need for drugs (insulin for example). I wonder if this was at all influential in his veto?
Cathy
The downside of privately funded research is that when cure are found, they may be too expensive for anyone to actually get them. When the government does this research the results are avialabe to everyone not just those that can afford it.
i think it’s funyn that Bush is against it because it “destroys” human life, but the majority of the embryos if not used for this type of stem cell research become medical waste and are just thrown out like garbage. I think it’s far less valuing of life to throw them away then to use them for something that will benefit the quality of life for so many.
Also Bush equates stem cell research with murder, but then says it’s okay for private companies to do it. So the governement isn’t allowed to “murder” (but does kill thousands) but it’s private companies to “murder”.
ROFLMAO
Mega [B]RACK/B for you, Jason. That made me laugh.
I don’t know. I think the main problem would be that the hugely successful drug companies have no incentive to cure the disease. Curing a big disease like diabetes could drastically reduce the amount of drugs the mega-drug companies would sell.
it was his first veto partly because congress would modify bills to get his approval whenever he threatened to use it.
…and i don’t like stem cell research because people are already living too long. we can’t stay in this mortal coil forever. accept it.
How long is too long? 40? 50? 60? It’s not just about prolonging a full life span, it’s about letting people not die early, hmmm? What about somebody who spends their whole life in a wheelchair, barely able to move or speak? Regardless of lifespan, if her problem can be fixed or even reduced, her quality of life will improve immeasurably.
Links please? Citations? Quotes? Any evidence to back this up besides one or two freak occurences?
Stem cell research may help find a cure for spinal cord injuries, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, heart disease, retinal degeration and a slew of other conditions. It’s not just about extending life, it’s also about improving the quality of life. Scientists have already been able to restore motor function in rats with injured / diseased spinal cords. Wouldn’t you want to be able to give the gift of walking to those who’ve lost their abilities?
Probably millions of pounds (dollars) worth of drugs that would no longer be needed. The pharmacutical industry is not going to let that go so easily.
Cathy
http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/015114.html
ADULT stem cell research has resulted in EIGHTY Therapies that have saved and improved lives.
Embryonic stem cell research has resulted in ZERO therapies and save ZERO lives.
Interesting, but a (very) short amount of reading showed that to be an anti-choice-leaning blog. I prefer getting my facts from less-biased sources. In any case, it’s great to see that non-embryonic stem cells are doing great stuff!
So does that mean we should stop AIDS and Influenza research since we have found ZERO cures for these diseases?
Millions?!? No, Cath, billions and billions. They stand to lose their income streams. And you’re right, they not going to let it go.