By a 253-174 vote, the House passed H.R. 3, aimed at granting full federal funding for stem cell research. A similar bill passed in the 109th Congress, and was subsequently vetoed by President Bush.
It shouldn’t come as any surprise to any of us that Bush will likely veto this bill again. I can say with an absolute certainty, without looking at a roll call, that all 3 Nebraska representatives voted against this bill. They all campaigned against stem cell research during the elections, and they were all endorsed by anti-choice organizations. Without a veto-proof majority, I don’t know if a stem cell research bill will ever become law until we have a Democrat in the White House.
Much of the opposition to stem cell research is either based in ignorance or religious dogmatism. Ignorance that says stem-cell research will lead to, or is tantamount to, human cloning. Ignorance that says stem-cell research uses fetal tissue. Religious dogmatism that says in vitro fertilization is evil, and that the embryos created through the process – slated for destruction anyway – should not be used for research that could potentially save lives.
So despite passing the House, and though likely to get a large amount of bipartisan support in the Senate, this bill stands little chance of actually becoming law. Nonetheless, it represents progress in Congress, on an issue that is gaining public support across the nation. Democrats are in favor of expanding research that can potentially save lives. Federal funding for stem cell research will come, eventually, as public opinion and education continues to grow in favor of it.
Dave you stay off stem cells. That is my territory.
No problem, Erin.
I will investigate this further, however, I would like to know what positive embryonic stem cell research results have occured in history compaired to the positive adult stem cell research results.
Also, would the people who are pro-embryonic stem cell research be against a policy that allowed embrionic stem cell research only on non-aborted babies? If not, why? Is it because possibly embryonic stem cell research is being used as a promotion for the “right to choose”? Or is that one would not like to see a perfectly good and usable dead baby gone to waste?
Hey Alex: Here’s a deal, give Embryonic Stem cell research the same funding adult stem cell research has received, then the same amount of time, and once we’re at a parity point, we’ll get back to you on that.
Even with the very limited private funding promising treatments have been tested.
A treatment derived from human embryonic stem cells improves mobility in rats with spinal cord injuries, providing the first physical evidence that the therapeutic use of these cells can help restore motor skills lost from acute spinal cord tissue damage.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=24159
Alex,
Great questions. Here is my response:
I suggest that you read my blog post on stem cells. Aborted fetuses CANNOT be used for stem cell research. When a blastocyst (very early stage of fertilization) is implanted in the uterus, cell-signaling occurs and the stem cells will no longer be totipotent (able to produce all cell types). This is a little known fact. Embryonic stem cells come from a dish (culture) or are left over from in vitro fertilization procedures. Hundreds of eggs are fertilized and a very small fraction are implanted for pregnancy. What do clinics often do with these blastocysts one might ask? Well, most are disposed. Why not use them for valuable research?
Also, my post points out the differences between adult and embryonic stem cells. In short, adult stem cells are not as potent (cannot produce as many cell types) as embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells are also difficult to obtain/ isolate and don’t grow well in culture. My post will also inform you on a third, less known source of stem cells called somatic cell nuclear transfer.
PS Dave I was kidding just to make that clear. Write all you want about stem cells. I love it!