From The Washington Post
Bush Vetoes Bill to Expand Stem Cell Research
By Michael A. Fletcher
Wednesday, June 20, 2007; 3:20 PM

President Bush vetoed legislation this afternoon to expand federally funded embryonic stem cell research, as the White House sought to emphasize scientific advances that would allow researchers to pursue the potentially life-saving work without destroying human embryos.

Bush followed his veto--his third since becoming president--with an executive order aimed at encouraging federal agencies to support research that offers the promise of creating medically useful stem cells without destroying human embryos. The order requires the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure that all so-called pluripotent stem cells are eligible for federal research grants.

In his veto message to Congress, Bush said the legislation crossed an ethical line.

Read the rest of this frustrating news here.

Labels: congress, embryonic, George W. Bush, stem cell, veto

Readers of this site tend to have their minds more or less made up before coming here -- which, indeed, is what makes it imperative that the two sides focus on the things they have in common, rather than beating one another up about their differences.

A good place to start -- the most basic of "things they have in common" -- are the simple facts of stem cell research. Figure out and agree on what we're talking about, and then maybe (maybe) we can begin to draw up guidelines about what to do with the facts. All of this is one reason why I especially appreciated a recent post by Catherine Morgan, of the BlogHer site: "What You Might Not Know About Stem Cell Research."

Now, Ms. Morgan certainly has an opinion on many of the questions at hand. Yet she's posted a 12-minute YouTube video dispassionately explaining stem cells in general, adult vs. embryonic stem cells, and so on. (You can watch the video here if you don't want to read her commentary.)

Labels: dialogue, embryo, embryonic, stem cell, YouTube

The following was posted on Iowa Voice by Brian, Tuesday, June 12, 2007

USA Today has an article up on embryonic stem cells and includes this quote:

Last fall, a political ad featuring actor Michael J. Fox shaking and swaying from the effects of his Parkinson’s disease focused white-hot attention on the battle over research on embryonic stem cells.
This week, President Bush is likely to veto, for the second time, a stem cell bill passed by Congress. And another Hollywood figure, filmmaker Jerry Zucker, is trying to influence the debate with his own video, this one a slickly produced spot posted on youtube.com. [NOTE: You can view the film below.]

The 3½-minute film, which is not scheduled to run on TV, portrays Bush in a video conference with two workers at a fertility clinic who plead for guidance about what to do with the embryos that are no longer wanted by couples.

“Well, they’re human lives. And that’s sacred,” says an actor whose lips are juxtaposed on footage of the president in the Oval Office. “Throw them in the trash.”

Zucker, a longtime stem cell activist whose directing credits include Airplane! and Ghost, says he wanted to focus on what he sees as the heart of the issue. “For the fertilized eggs that are being discarded on a daily basis in this country, why is it better to throw them away than to use them to cure diseases?” he asks. “Nobody ever answers that question.”

(My emphasis)

Mr. Zucker, you obviously haven’t been paying attention, because MANY people have answered, and far more eloquently than I’m about to.

Read what Brian has to say here..

Labels: embryo, embryonic, Michael J. Fox, Parkinson's, stem cell

As if the struggle to obtain government funding for embryonic stem-cell research wasn't already difficult enough, The Center for American Progress had this on March 1st:

Ongoing stem cell research and cloning debates in Kansas and other states highlight a new frontier in the stem cell debate: attempts to define scientific terms for political advantage.

The federal government’s inaction has left a void in overarching scientific guidelines and regulation. State-level opponents of stem cell research are trying to fill that void with altered scientific terminology that conflates human beings and embryos and overbroad definitions of human cloning. These efforts to politically define complicated biological terms often results in ill-conceived laws that satisfy neither opponents nor supporters, confuse scientists attempting to pursue research in the state, and may even create legal problems for those attempting to conduct cooperative studies across state lines.

Two recent bills passed out of committee in the Kansas House of Representatives are particularly egregious examples of the political manipulation of scientific terminology. Advocates of the first bill, H.B. 2098, claim it is an attempt “to define terms related to human cloning.” Yet in reality, it’s an attempt to politically redefine terms to help opponents of stem cell research.

The companion bill H.B. 2255 is a demonstration of just this strategy. Using identical definitions to those in H.B. 2098, the bill seeks to ban public funding for “human cloning to create a cloned embryo,” defined as SCNT.

Even ignoring the ban on funding for SCNT, which would subvert the will of the people of Kansas and prevent scientists in the state from pursuing cures with the best tools available, the bill is simply a poor piece of legislation. It defines an embryo as “the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus or an organism in the early stages of development.” This definition, when considered alongside other references to the “human organism” in the bill, seems intended to blur the line between human beings and embryos.

Unfortunately, the vagueness of the definition also blurs the distinction between a fetus and an embryo. The legislation could be read as stripping away protections for what scientists consider an early stage fetus because it would legally be considered an embryo in Kansas. Certainly the proponents of this bill would not intend this effect, and neither opponents nor proponents of the legislation would condone weakening research protections for the fetus. But by relying on politics instead of science when defining technical terms, legislators may open the door to a whole host of unintended consequences, such as making fetuses more vulnerable to potentially harmful research.

Read the entire article here.

Labels: cloning, embryonic, stem cell research, stem cells

Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, says, "The reason we should be opposed is a moral reason. [Embryonic stem cell research] involves, at least for now, the destruction of innocent human life to obtain the cells."

George went on to compare embryonic stem cell research with harvesting organs from mentally retarded infants. Talk about apples and oranges! No one disputes that infants, mentally retarded or not, are human beings. Whether embryos are human beings is being widely debated, however, and linking scientists working with 3-5 days old embryos with baby killers is insulting, not to mention overly dramatic.

"An embryo must be regarded as a human being because the embryo is 'a distinct and complete human organism in its earliest stage of development,' George said." This is the same position taken by the Religious Right, the Pope, and George Bush. A great many people disagree, however, and offer various opinions on exactly when the embryo becomes a human being. Some base it on brain development, others to breath, still others to viability outside the womb, and so on.

The reality is that we're no closer to agreeing on the beginning of human life than we've ever been. For example, I still question why it's more moral to give preference to microscopic clusters of cells over living, breathing, suffering human beings. If anyone has a better reason than the ones I've been given so far, I'd really like to hear it.

Read the complete article.

Labels: beginning of human life, embryo, embryonic, stem cell

In a recent Ezine article, Yvonne Perry, the owner of Write On! Creative Writing Services based in Nashville, Tennessee, accuses the media of giving "the public some misleading and non-factual information about embryonic stem cell research." To futher make her point, Yvonne is "writing a book titled Right to Recover: Winning The Political And Religious Wars Over Stem Cell Research In America. It presents a reasoned voice that will challenge the misinformation, educate people with facts to help secure federal funds for embryonic stem cell research."

To read more about what Yvonne has to say about embryonic stem-cell research, and to get information on her upcoming book, check out this site.

And here's the home page for Yvonne's writing services.

Labels: embryonic, media, religious, stem cell

I'm sure there are many Floridians not bothered at all by Charlie Crist's complete 180-degree turn around on embryonic stem-cell research. During his campaign for governor, Crist argued in favor of stem-cell research using embryos scheduled to be destroyed, and even went so far as to criticize President Bush for vetoing the bill that would have expanded federal funding to include such research.

What happened in the intervening months to change Crist's mind? Or did he change it at all? Knowing that the majority of Americans, including Floridians, favor embryonic stem-cell research, was Crist merely courting votes with his public stance? I wonder how many votes were influenced by the stem-cell issue? It's always troubling when a politician doesn't follow through on campaign promises, but it's particularly maddening when one completely reverses himself, as in this case.

Oh well, there's always someone on the other side grateful for the switch.

Labels: Crist, embryonic, stem cell, stem-cell

Governor Charlie Crist pledged last week to devote $20 million to stem-cell research. But like Bush's federal plan, the money's for adult stem-cell research only. Research using embryonic stem cells is still an extremely divisive issue, and Crist took the politically expedient route. From the Tallahassee Democrat:

Crist is attempting to sidestep the debate altogether. Limiting use of state money to adult stem cells from places like umbilical cord blood and amniotic fluid, along with embryonic lines produced before 2001, appeases religious groups and a skeptical Florida Legislature alike.

According to Crist:

he was less interested in trying to make a ''political point'' by supporting embryonic research than getting Florida on the board for funding stem cell research.

''It may not be as far as some would like it to be,'' Crist said. ''But I think it's important to have a good first step, one that is successful.''

Dr. William Kerr,associate professor at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa spoke for many scientists across the state:

"We know there are limitations on adult stem cells. We haven't been able to overcome those,'' Kerr said. ''We view embryonic as a way to overcome those obstacles. That doesn't mean it's guaranteed . . . but if we don't experiment with them, we'll never know."

Regardless, researchers using stem cells in Florida say the money is desperately needed because federal research dollars have been basically capped for years.

Read the entire article here.

Labels: embryonic, Florida, stem cell, stem-cell