George’s big fat cell veto

Today, for the first time during his administration, President Bush vetoed a bill that had been approved by Congress. While he must be commended for not abusing his veto power (unlike other Presidents, most notably FDR who used this power an astounding 635 times), it must be pointed out that this particular bill is of significantly large consequence.

Had the bill passed, it would have “multiplied the [amount of] federal money going into embryonic stem cell research”, allowing researchers to use federal funding to do research on the both adult and embryonic stem cells. However, according to W., who wholeheartedly backs adult-stem cell research, embryonic stem cell research “[crosses] a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect,” and thus vetoed the bill. Now, as his stance on this topic has not wavered, one cannot say that his decision was a tactic used to simply garner the support of his more conservative Republican followers. Yet with close to 75% of the country in favor of embryonic stem cell research according to recent poll data, as well as almost 2/3 of the Senate in favor of federal funds being used to fund such research (the senate was 4 votes short of overturning Bush’s veto), something must be said about the country’s desire for the bill to pass.

Advances in embryonic stem cell research could potentially lead to cures for diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, diseases that have caused pain and suffering to millions of people across the planet (my late grandfather included). Why vote to deny scientists the opportunity to have access to resources that would allow them to conduct such research?

The reason comes down to the lasting debate regarding the beginning of life. Does life start at the point of conception or does it start at a later stage, when the fetus has begun to form? Does taking a lab-created embryo that is normally four to five days old and using it to try and develop cures for those living with life-threatening disease constitute murder, or should it be condoned? These are the questions that one must ask in order to truly develop an understanding of one’s own ideas. And opinions cannot necessarily be drawn down the lines of pro-life or pro-choice. “I am I am pro-life, but I disagree with the president’s decision,” said Bill Frist, the Republican leader of the Senate. “Given the potential of this research and the limitations of the existing lines eligible for federally funded research, I think additional lines should be made available.”

Scientists tend to agree with Senator Frist. According Neal Lane, a Rice University professor and former President Bill Clinton’s top science adviser, the veto is “a big step in the wrong direction.” Given the circumstances, and the potential advances that could be had with a greater number of resources being put towards embryonic research, I would have to agree.

- Taps

Special thanks to my dear Anu for her invaluable contribution to the blog through our debate regarding the topic.