Bush uses veto to stop stem cell research [Archive]

MrBoogiejuice

2006-07-20, 11:55 AM

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.

UniBrier

2006-07-20, 01:56 PM

I don't think Bush has the power to stop all stem cell reseach.

SCIENTISTS say the United States could see its lead in global research suffer after President George W. Bush vetoed a Bill that would have expanded federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

He vetoed expanded federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

ice_cold_uni6

2006-07-20, 03:58 PM

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.

maestro8

2006-07-20, 05:51 PM

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?!

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:B1oQ5ZmHNmq7UM:www.indybay.org/uploads/abortbush.jpg.jpg

johnfoss

2006-07-20, 05:56 PM

research will eventually yeild the huge benefits that are expected, its just a matter of time.
...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.

entropy

2006-07-20, 06:31 PM

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.

Gilby

2006-07-20, 06:50 PM

johnhimsworth

2006-07-20, 07:48 PM

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)

cathwood

2006-07-20, 07:52 PM

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

ThisGuyIKnow

2006-07-20, 07:59 PM

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".

dudewithasock

2006-07-20, 11:20 PM

steveyo

2006-07-21, 01:18 AM

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 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.

boo radley

2006-07-21, 05:22 AM

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.

johnfoss

2006-07-21, 03:02 PM

...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.

maestro8

2006-07-21, 05:33 PM

it was his first veto partly because congress would modify bills to get his approval whenever he threatened to use it.
Links please? Citations? Quotes? Any evidence to back this up besides one or two freak occurences?

...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.
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?

cathwood

2006-07-21, 06:02 PM

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

terrybigwheel

2006-07-21, 08:50 PM

johnfoss

2006-07-21, 09:32 PM

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!

maestro8

2006-07-21, 10:11 PM

Embryonic stem cell research has resulted in ZERO therapies and save ZERO lives.
So does that mean we should stop AIDS and Influenza research since we have found ZERO cures for these diseases?

steveyo

2006-07-21, 10:21 PM

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.

CathyMillions?!? No, Cath, billions and billions. They stand to lose their income streams. And you're right, they not going to let it go.

johnfoss

2006-07-21, 11:32 PM

They stand to lose their income streams. And you're right, they not going to let it go.
You guys are assuming expensive drugs/therapies will be replaced by less-expensive drugs/therapies? The trend seems to be the opposite. If you *cure* something it kills your income stream (except the same person will be alive to catch something else later on). But if you can only *treat* it, you're still in the same boat with a different product.

steveyo

2006-07-21, 11:35 PM

You guys are assuming expensive drugs/therapies will be replaced by less-expensive drugs/therapies? The trend seems to be the opposite. If you *cure* something it kills your income stream (except the same person will be alive to catch something else later on). But if you can only *treat* it, you're still in the same boat with a different product.
As I understand it, the stem cell research is toward the actual cures of the aforementioned diseases, not new methods of treatment.

terrybigwheel

2006-07-22, 12:32 AM

So does that mean we should stop AIDS and Influenza research since we have found ZERO cures for these diseases?
No. I just thought it was an interesting observation. Why do we seem to NEVER hear about ADULT stem cell research; especially the successes, and seem ONLY hear about embryonic stem cell stuff? Maybe there IS an agenda in play...maybe?

ThisGuyIKnow

2006-07-22, 12:55 AM

No. I just thought it was an interesting observation. Why do we seem to NEVER hear about ADULT stem cell research; especially the successes, and seem ONLY hear about embryonic stem cell stuff? Maybe there IS an agenda in play...maybe?

The reason why embyronic stem cells haven't had any successes yet is becuase they havent' been doinghte research taht long. Adult Stem Cell research started 40 years ago. With very little research the advantages of Embryonic Stem Cells over Adult Stem Cells are obvious. I'll leave that taks up to you guys though you can start with the National Institute of Health.

We don't hear about Adult Stem Cell research because to the general public science is boring. No one is intentially suppressing this "news" about adult stem cell research. it's just that no one cares.

It only becomes a hot button issue when it can be used to forward political views. The current administration has decided to make stem cell research a hot button issue because it helps win the sway of the Pro-life contingent.

There is an agenda here to keep George Bush's Evangelic fundamentalist base happy.

monkeyman

2006-07-22, 03:36 AM

...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.
My mom, and my best friend's mom, who is practically my surrogate mom both have Multiple Sclerosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_sclerosis). Everyday they both have to drag themselves to get through the day because they're always so tired. There are times when they can't do anything other than lie in bed, because it gets to be so much. They will both most likely be wheelchair ridden in about 15 years. I would give anything to rid them of that. I don't care how much money the companies lose, or how many embryos that are going to be thrown away anyway are used for it. To me, it would easily be worth it.

My stepbrother has Spina Bifida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spina_bifida). He's 19 years old, and has had 33 surgeries. One of those kept him in the hospital over Christmas. He will be in a wheel chair for all of his life.

My grandpa has diabetes. He barely has any circulation in both feet, and is up and awake a grand total of 4 hours a day. And that's on a good day.

What if it was someone close to you? Your mom? How about Dad? Or your wife? Would you rather sit there and watch them suffer, or try and do something about it?

ThisGuyIKnow

2006-07-22, 05:07 AM

Monkey man, your points are very valid, my motehr also has MS. When I heard that a paralyzed rat was walking I almost cried.

But I should mention to you that Boo Radley was being sarcistic.

monkeyman

2006-07-22, 02:22 PM

Monkey man, your points are very valid, my motehr also has MS. When I heard that a paralyzed rat was walking I almost cried.

But I should mention to you that Boo Radley was being sarcistic.

hmmmm....oh.
Well, the points are still good for the thread anyway.