2006-07-30 12:50:53 · 30 answers · asked by swanmode 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Medicine
As other answerers have noted, he vetoed federal funding for stem cell research, not the research itself. This means that private organizations can still fund stem cell research, but the National Institute of Heath (NIH) cannot fund research projects that involve stem cells besides those lines already in existence. Because the NIH is a major source of funding for medical research, this significantly impedes the ability of scientists to carry out research involving stem cells.
Bush vetoed the bill that would have provided funding for embryonic stem cell research because be believes that harvesting stem cells from a human embryo is murder, since the embryo is destroyed in the process.
Contrary to some of the previous answers, stem cell research has nothing to do with abortion. Scientists do not, and will not create human embryos specifically to harvest stem cells, or even harvest stem cells from aborted fetuses. They take cells from extra embryos created in fertility clinics. These embryos have been discarded by the clinic, and will be destroyed whether or not they are used for research.
One of the above answerers asserted that stem cell research is not likely to lead to improved medical care, and won't treat anything but Alzheimer's. This is blatantly false. Stem cells have the ability to turn into any type of cell in the body. The ability to manipulate stem cells would allow doctors to replace any sick or damaged cells of any type in the body. This would have the potential to reverse the effects of not only Alzheimer's, but also Parkinson's, ALS, CJD, MS, spinal chord injuries, and many other neurological conditions. It would also have the potential to cure diseases such as type I diabetes, and any number of other disease resulting from the absence or lack of function of certain types of cells. Also, cancer cells are very similar to stem cells in a number of ways, and many of the side effects of cancer treatments involve the destruction of stem cells, so a greater understanding of the function of stem cells may well lead to improved cancer therapies.
2006-07-30 18:57:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are misinformed. He did not veto stem cell research, he vetoed federal funding for stem cell research. Private industry can charge ahead. He did not keep Christopher Reeves from walking. The aura of potential for embryonic stem cells is media hype. So far actual research on these cells have only shown a tendency to produce tumors. Actually more progress has been made on research with more mature stem cells from cord blood and even adult stem cells. Eventually we will be able to use stem cells but not in the near future.
2006-07-30 20:01:48 · answer #2 · answered by DrB 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, it was because of two things:
First, Liberals would use stem cells as a way to justify abortion.
Second, Stem cells can not cure anything at the moment, and there is no scientific reason to belive that they could.
Alhzeimers is the main thing that stem cells would suppossedly be used to cure, but at this moment a cure is being tested by the FDA, and it has a 95% success rate. It cured 19 out of 20 of the test subjects that took it, and killed the 20th.
They need to make sure that its safe before they start using it on the public. it should be out in a few years.
2006-07-30 19:55:43 · answer #3 · answered by Doggzilla 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush vetoed federal funding for additional stem cell lines.
That means NIH/NSF cannot fund some promising research for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's,etc.
The embryos that are used will be destroyed any way, why not make use of those. They will be "murdered" any way.
If your Senators/Congressmen voted against the bills (there were/are 3), write them telling them of your dissappointment. I did and asked them to reconsider after the Veto to override it.
2006-07-30 20:14:33 · answer #4 · answered by CheriDonna 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because of the lack of funding for science education in this country. If he had been reared with a sound footing in the biological sciences, he would understand specifically why the "embryos" we use to obtain stem cells are NOT any more alive than the bacteria we kill by using lysol on our kitchen sinks.
2006-07-30 21:12:55 · answer #5 · answered by sous_lepontmirabeau 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He realizes that no intelligent nation can use modern medicine as an excuse to kill it's future in order to "save" it's present. Also check your facts, adult stem cell research is way more promising to those of us with degenerative diseases than embryo stem cell research.
2006-07-31 21:44:21 · answer #6 · answered by mom2three 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He vetoed FEDERAL FUNDING of stem cell research. Private firms can still conduct this research.
2006-07-30 19:52:39 · answer #7 · answered by Dino4747 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he didn't, he vetoed federal funding. Stem cell research has been called a moral issue. those who want to experiment on fetal cells for a future with mixed reviews, let's use theirs. life contrary to popular polls, is not cheap.
2006-07-30 19:57:23 · answer #8 · answered by firechap20 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why?
Up to that point he had neither passed nor vetoed a single bill. All were allowed to go though with only his "signing statements".
He did finally pass the new voting right bill - in front of the TV cameras & the Naacp - a complete photo op!
2006-07-30 19:59:08 · answer #9 · answered by carl l 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
*It's not moral. It's not ethical to take cells that will take away a human life even if the to be mother was going to have an abortion.
*Liberals would have an excuse as to why abortions should be ethical.
*They don't have an official cure for these diseases yet. This would just be "experimenting."
*Once they cure these diseases, they'd want a new standard, like everyone that was born should have blue eyes or no one could have red hair.
*It would no longer be what God has given us that we "treasure", it would be the way science has altered our appearance.
*What if we're close to a cure now? Would all that research be lost?
Do you get it now?
2006-07-30 19:54:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋