Stem Cell Bill: Politics or Research?
The US Congress has sent another stem cell bill to the White House, in a repeated attempt to gain more federal funding for research on stem cells derived from embryos that are no longer needed for fertility treatments. The revised bill also includes a call for increased funding of research into alternative methods of producing stem cells. This is the second time this year Congress has passed such a bill. President Bush vetoed the first bill and is expected to veto the second also, although the clause to support non-embryonic stem cell research was apparently added to gain more Republican support.
According to Science Daily, Republican John Boehner (Ohio), the House GOP leader, suggested in a statement to reporters that the Democrats are more motivated by politics than science, sending the second bill only to coax a veto from the president and “score political points”. I realize that this is a topic of hot debate in the US right now, but I have to ask the question, who are they scoring political points with? If it’s with the public, doesn't that indicate that, in general, the majority of people are in favour of the bill? And if that’s the case, isn’t that the point of introducing a bill in the first place – to represent the wishes of the majority of people?
I invite comments from anyone with a more in-depth knowledge of American politics…do you think this bill was motivated by a desire to increase funding for stem cell research, or is it purely a politically motivated maneuver?
Comments
Hi, Theresa:
Deborah at US Liberals has covered the stem cell issue for a while.
It’s interesting to note that in 2005, the Republican-led House passed a stem cell research bill by 238 to 194. It stalled in the Republican-led Senate (led by Dr. Frist of TN) until 2006. As you noted, Bush vetoed it — it was the first veto of his presidency. The bill was opposed by the Christian right.
I do not think it’s a politically motivated bill — it’s now passed both a Republican-led Congress and a Democratic-led one. It has been a bi-partisan bill from the get-go, with the exception of the Christian right, of course, on the Republican side.
That said, I’m not sure that the average American understands the difference in adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research. However, there is a strong opposition to human cloning.
And remember, a significant percentage of Americans do not think evolution is scientifically supported by evidence — a significant percentage say that they believe in the literal bible — and only a slight majority supports embryonic stem cell research.
This one is going nowhere until there is a new President, IMO.
Politics. Only it’s sponsors voted against S.30 – which recognizes embryos that no longer grow as ‘naturally dead’ http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.00030 . 50% of IVF embryos arrest within the 1st wk,
http://molehr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/8/10/919 . These embryos produce normal embryonic stem cells at the same rate as other embryos. http://stemcells.alphamedpress.org/cgi/content/abstract/24/12/2669?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=arrested&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT
This would yield hundreds of times more embryonic stem cells than S.5, since few clinic embryos are available for research. (Indeed the study from which 400,000 embryos comes concludes that if all clinic embryos available for research were used simply to produce stem cells, only 275 would http://www.asrm.org/Professionals/Fertility&Sterility/cryoembryos_may2003.pdf .)
S.30 passed with a veto-proof margin & the the President said he’d sign it. Yet, S.5, the bill that would yield less than 7 stem cell lines per state and the President will veto because it violates the Clinton era Dickey Amendment was rushed through the Houses.
If this were more about research and cures than emotionally charging the public it would be a no brainer to do the converse.
Final proof it’s politics? The only Senators to vote against S.30 include: Boxer, Clinton, Feinstein, Kennedy, Obama, Reid & Schumer …
Politics. Only S.5 sponsors voted against S.30 – which recognizes embryos that no longer grow as ‘naturally dead’ http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.00030 . 50% of IVF embryos arrest within the 1st wk,
http://molehr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/8/10/919 . These embryos produce normal embryonic stem cells at the same rate as other embryos. http://stemcells.alphamedpress.org/cgi/content/abstract/24/12/2669?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=arrested&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT
This would yield hundreds of times more embryonic stem cells than S.5, since few clinic embryos are available for research. (Indeed the study from which 400,000 embryos comes concludes that if all clinic embryos available for research were used simply to produce stem cells, only 275 would http://www.asrm.org/Professionals/Fertility&Sterility/cryoembryos_may2003.pdf .)
S.30 passed with a veto-proof margin & the the President said he’d sign it. Yet, S.5, the bill that would yield less than 7 stem cell lines per state and the President will veto because it violates the Clinton era Dickey Amendment was rushed through the Houses.
(By the way, neither bill increases funding for stem cell research like your article implies – they expand eligibility. Funding for human embryonic stem cell research would still be about $40 million/year – or 20x that which cord blood gets .)
If this were more about research and cures than emotionally charging the public it would be a no brainer to do the converse.
Final proof it’s politics? The only Senators to vote against S.30 include: Boxer, Clinton, Feinstein, Kennedy, Obama, Reid & Schumer …