Finally - We got a news article from someone from the media that sees through the "hate-crazed anti-Bush" rhetoric to clearly see what is happening in politics. How sad that this great nation has been reduced to trying to get it's business done through such power hungry politicians. So many times, the price is paid by those that really need the legislation, but have to wait until the "political game" is played; many times to the detriment of the little guy.

Thank you for calling it as it is.

The science is not for everybody.
Sufferings are still staying for millions of people because of incompetent power.
History proves that the Power comes and goes.

It doesn't matter who wins the white house next year because we will have a Republican majority in both the Senate and the House.
The Democrats didn't keep their promises, and the media is guilty of selective magnifying of the issues. People are starting to get smarter.

The process by which skin sells can 'revert' to stem cells is poorly understood and no one is sure yet how big the differences between these stem cells and 'original' stem cells are. It's widely suspected that stems cells made from skin cells may lose many of the very properties that make them useful in the first place.

Also 'alternative' stem cells such as those from umbilical cords are indeed useful, however, they seem to be rather limited in their scope and abilities, limitations that stem cells provided for in this bill do not have.

Certainly the research should continue with both of these alternatives, but neither seem to have the promise and scope that embryonic stem cells have.

To say that embryonic stem cell research should be abandoned just because some other alternatives *might* exist is foolishness. All options should be researched, then the best path chosen. It's common sense.

You and your christianazi and neocon friends have had your day. You screwed everything up. Now just quietly go away and let the rest of us try to fix it.

Yes, there are other alternatives to embryonic stem cells, but the issue here is that they may not have the same potential as non-embryonic stem cells or those extracted from amniotic fluid or umbilical cords. As you said, there are no human clinical trials on embryonic stem cells, so how could you possibly know that it won't be any better or yield any better results?

The point, simply, is this: if the "human life" of these embryos (that are going to be discarded anyway) is so sacred, then why not use them for something greater than the trash heap? And even more, is it not a woman's choice to donate her unfertilized eggs to research? You make it sound as if these women get pregnant and then donate these embryos - this is not true. The eggs are donated, and they are then fertilized in a laboratory so that embryos are created and can then be implanted in women seeking pregnancy who cannot attain it through more conventional methods. Also, if a woman has a fundamental right to an abortion (via Roe v. Wade), then is it not also her right to donate her unfertilized eggs as she pleases?

Frankly, I see no moral issue here, and I think the real culprit of playing politics is Pres. Bush. Time and time again, public opinion has shown that the majority of Americans (60+%, last I checked) support the use of embryonic stem cells for research. Instead of listening to the majority of the public (which, by the way, is his job), he instead decides to pander to the minority of the public that agrees with his narrow views on the topic.

should be spelled mike WHACKer.

this argument is from the same camp that brought us the ol' "it's the iraqis' fault that iraq is such a mess".

phhhhht.

"congress, by passing this bill, has forced the president to veto it."

political games, indeed. grow up.

Great article Mike: Why not try to have a conversation with Michael J. Fox and some of his friends? Maybe if some of them saw the light, they would cease being used by the pols. joyer

The argument for embryonic research I always hear is that it is "what the people want! This is a democracy!" But, it isn't. We live in a representative republic designed to help protect the rights of minorities. When I saw the headline for this article I immediately assumed I was going to be commenting to make this argument against the legislation. Using the police power of the government to collect money from people, and spend it on something that is so clearly iniquitous to so many, justifies the use of a veto. I honestly can't support or reject the science behind the study of embryonic stem cells because I don't know all of the facts. But I can say that I support Bush for having the ability to not take the road of political expediency.

Great article. A lot of facts I did not know about stem cells. A refreshing turn from the way the media normally reacts to this issue.

Two things:

First, I'm not entirely clear why the Congressional approval rating might be low. Speaking from my perspective, I assume that it is because they caved so quickly on the Iraq spending bill; or maybe they're just giving in too easily on a host of issues.

Second, and I think this is related, HOPE is a half-measure. It continues to permit the disposal of in vitro fertilized (IVF) embryos, and puts a limit on progress. It makes promises regarding alternative sources of stem cells that are not clear to even the top scientists studying them. And it also blurs the line on what researchers would actually be using from IVF embryos that would otherwise be destined for the trash - these are blastocysts, in the earliest stages of development, and no more than a ball of cells.

We, and Congress, should not cave to pressure from would-be theocratic ideologues, and while HOPE might provide a half measure until we are rid of the worst president in living memory, it does just what your title suggests: It puts politics over science.

In your third paragraph you ask the question "So why promote embryonic stem cells with their moral controversies, when you have new, identical technology that can thrive with federal funding that avoids the moral dilemma?" The simple answer is that WE DO NOT KNOW IF IT WILL WORK ON HUMANS. The research was only done on mice and to be effective in humans will take years of research on embryonic stem cells. Marius Wernig, a member of the MIT Whitehead Institute research team on the project had this to say when presenting the results, "It is now really important to continue, if not intensify, our research on human embryonic stem cells."
I find it very sad to today science has become debatable in partisan politics and that the religious views of a few people are preventing the health and well being of many.

Don't put much weight into the adult/embryonic comparison, Mike. No stem cell scientist in the world will deny that embryonic stem cells hold more potential than adult stem cells -- when you hear about the "track records" of these two stem cells, what you are hearing is accurate, but neglects the fact that adult stem cells have been studied and utilized for nearly half a century while embryonic stem cells have only come about in the past decade. Add to that the fact that embryonic stem cells are still struggling to gain a place in practical medical practice today and it's rather self-explanatory as to why we've seen more so far out of adult stem cells.

Regardless, if embryonic stem cells do NOT hold the potential that we have thought of, scientists will naturally move away from their use. This has not been the case so far.

This legislation should not be used as a political front for an on going war against abortion. However, this is exactly what it's turning out to be. The vetoing of this bill marks a sad day in that an option to save lives is being killed. The option itself to use embryonic stem cells, and for it to be eligible to receive federal funding is much more important and critical than the actual usage. It's always better to have more options on the table than less. You never know when it'll be needed.

Hypocrisy has no limits Mr Wacker! Your article is one of the most idiotic arguments I have read so far.
You are blaming the congress that Bush is not smart enough to let this law pass?
Don't you find it completely insane that the one person who has caused the death of over 3500 American soldiers and half a million innocent people of Iraq is trying to protect the life of embryos that would get discarded anyway?????

GROW UP PEOPLE! OPEN THOSE EYES TO THE TRUTH OF THESE MONSTERS!

I am sick of these evil men who are killing our kids every day for their own profit and power.

It makes me sad to see how this president has killed another great scientific development opportunity. His presidency has left him a legacy where he is severely criticized for his war. This was his chance to shine but he has failed us again.

He and his party seem to be completely out of touch with reality. He and his party are in favor of saving children from getting aborted while they are not in favor of saving the people whose problems can be cured in the future with the use of the development. I’m not in favor of abortion. This new science if used responsibility can help save a lot of lives.

This day should be considered a sad day in the history of USA.

It always strikes me as odd that some of the most passionate opponents of stem cell research have absolutely no background in science and might as well be debating rocket science for all they know. Congress is trying to fund research on cells that WILL BE THROWN AWAY if not used. I dont understand how throwing "a human life" in the trash is more ethical than ussing it for some good. This is very similar to the global warming skepticists. With absolutely no scientific training they say we cant be causing global warming simply because its hard for them to imagine. If you want to weigh in on this take some atmospheric chemistry courses. Untill then, once again, you might as well be debating the finer points of rocket science.

As a conservative myself, I cannot tell you Mr. Wacker just how pleased I am that Government is telling scientist what to research and how to research. We must go further however, since it morally offends many, perhaps a majority of the US population, when scientist assume that the world is older than 7000 years, we should not fund and perhaps disallow altogether geology research except on recent landslides and erosion.

That way, 7 years later, you Mr. Wacker can claim "anyhow, geology research that assumes an older earth has made little progress in the last 7 years since we stopped funding it, recent research is better".

Are you really as daft as you sound? There is absolutely no way of knowing whether embryonic stem cells will end up 100x more valuable than adult stem cells or not without letting people try. Sheesh! We should have abandoned flat panel display research because for years the quality and price performance gap between flat pannels and CRT tubes continued to get worse. Any friggin sensible political committee would have closed down the flat panels in the early 1990s. Enough was enough.

Please carefully re-consider your conservative credentials. Perhaps you're closer to your Islamic brethren where state sponsored morality is an open direct goal.

The most succinct take on this I have seen is by Bob Parks at the university of Maryland. To quote him from his April 13, 2007 "What's New" newsletter:

George W. Bush and other conservative theologians believe a "soul" is assigned to the fertilized egg at the instant of conception. That makes it a person, even though it's not counted in the census. In-vitro fertilization makes a lot more of these one-celled people than it needs; leftovers are stacked in the freezer until it starts filling up. President Bush cares deeply about these helpless one-celled people and wants to ensure they are properly flushed down the disposal rather than exploited by godless scientists interested only the reduction of suffering.

Let me take a moment to remember why we do this research.
I remember my aunt, who died of Parkinsons disease.
I remember my father, who died of Parkinsons disease.

We don't know what causes the disease, we don't know yet how to cure it. It is 100% fatal, sometimes quickly, sometimes not. We do know that about 4000 patients are diagnosed each month, and another 4000 or so die, each month, every month.

Some 'Christians' are quick to point out that that they too want to see a cure despite their objectionss to the research. I believe this to be basically a lie and we should not be kind in calling it anything else. Their true position is that if no other cure can be found, excet through embryonic stem cell research, they would prefer for your family and mine to continue to die.

In their religious fundamentalism they, and Mr Bush, and Bin Laden himself are quite alike. Quite comfortable to have you and I and your family, and mine continue to die for their religion.

The only appropriate response is to ask them this question;
"What are the names of the people in your family that you are willing to watch die while you maintain your position against this research?" Few will have the courage to answer.

My Aunt's name was Barbara, my father's name was Hugh. I miss them both.

The names of the 4000 patients which will be diagnosed with Parkinsons next month, and those that will die next month are, as yet, unknown. Your chances of being among that group sometime in your life are about 1 in 300. Are you comfortable allowing 'christians' to play roulette with your life?

Dan,
There are no such thing as totipotent stem cells. The only totipotent cells are the fertilized egg and the first few cells produced by it's cleavage (how twins or triplets come about)and these do not multiply. Embryonic stem cells (ESC's) are pluripotent (just like the MIT breakthrough). Regardless, the reason why there are no human trials with ESC's are that animal trials have shown ESC's to be uncontrollable and rejected when introduced into a subject---tumors and mutations occur. Everytime you see reported news about stem cell therapy breakthroughs, these are all adult stem cell therapies (which many media outlets fail to disclose or clearly state). Ironically, these reported (adult) "stem cell breakthroughs" are being used to try to justify further funding for ESC research. Many scientists/researchers argue that adult stem cells are all that may be needed to treat disease/disorders, and these therapies are working or much closer to reality than ESC treatments. Perhaps there is hope in embryonic stem cell research, but true hope lies in adult stem cell research/therapies.