Also see below:     
Bush "Out of Touch" on Stem Cells    [
Experts Rip Rove Stem Cell Remark    [

    House Fails to Override Stem Cell Veto
    By Nedra Pickler
    The Associated Press

    Thursday 20 July 2006

    Washington - After waiting 5 1/2 years to make good on a veto threat, 0aPresident Bush used his first to underscore his politically risky stand against 0afederal funding for the embryonic stem cell research that most Americans support.

    Some political strategists say Bush's high-profile stance on such an intensely emotional issue could hurt the party's congressional candidates in November in heartland places like Missouri.

    "This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," Bush said after rejecting calls that he change his policy. "It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect."

    The veto puts some Republicans in the uncomfortable position of having to choose between the wishes of their conservative backers who consider embryonic stem cells to be early human life and those in greater numbers who want to use the cells for research that could one day save lives.

    "I think history will look very unkindly on this veto," said Rep. Chris Shays, a moderate Connecticut Republican who helped pass the legislation. "I believe the president is very sincere in vetoing this bill, but I think that he's been captured by his own ideology and taking his ideology to an extreme."

    "I think it will hurt" the party in November, said Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., who supported the veto. But he said Bush and Republicans who were allied with him were acting on moral principle and not politics. "I'm willing to roll the dice on that."

    In vetoing the bill Bush made good on a promise he made in 2001 to limit federally funded embryonic research to the stem cell lines that had been created by the time.

    Republicans working to maintain majorities in Congress say stem cells will not be the biggest issue on voters' minds in November and that the economy, war and terrorism will be more important. However, Democrats warned that voters would not forget Bush's veto.

    "Everyone knows someone who needs this bill," said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the chairman of the Democratic senatorial committee. "We don't have to do much work on this bill. It'll speak for itself."

    There could be a silver lining for Republicans. The president's opposition to embryonic stem cell research is a popular move among his most conservative supporters - the same bloc that has been angry over Bush's immigration policies.

    Richard A. Viguerie, a conservative direct-mail fundraiser, said Bush is in "serious trouble" with his base.

    "If he were not to veto this legislation, you could see the administration come unraveled very quickly," Viguerie said. "It would really wreak havoc with his ability to govern with the conservative base there."

    The hope among Republican strategists is that the stem cell veto will reinvigorate conservatives to get to the polls in the midterm, when turnout is traditionally lower.

    The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee plans to fund ads on the issue in the fall as Democrats work to take control of the House with the November elections. Leading targets could be Republicans who are running in suburban districts, such as Peter Roskam near Chicago and Mike Fitzpatrick of the Philadelphia area.

    Strategists on both sides say the debate could have the biggest impact on the Senate race in Missouri, where a measure protecting embryonic stem cell research is expected to be on the ballot.

    Democrats chose their candidate in Missouri, State Auditor Claire McCaskill, to deliver last weekend's national radio address touting the potential lifesaving cures of the research. Incumbent Republican Sen. Jim Talent (news, bio, voting record) struggled over his position for months before announcing in May that he would oppose the ballot measure.

    Talent's position put him on the side of anti-abortion and religious groups but against the state's biggest business and medical groups, which have lined up behind the initiative. The state's Republican governor supports it, as does former Sen. John Danforth, an Episcopal priest who lost a brother to Lou Gehrig's disease and has taped ads touting the measure.

    "I think a lot of people are going to vote on this issue," Danforth said. He bristled at the suggestion that it could motivate conservatives and help the party.

    "I served in elected office as a Republican for 26 years," he said. "Is somebody telling me I don't count? My brother doesn't count? What counts is that religious theory that says what takes place in a lab dish takes precedent over my brother?"

 

---

    Go to Original

    Bush "Out of Touch" on Stem Cells
    BBC News

    Thursday 20 July 2006

Mr. Bush believes every human embryo is a potential life. Scientists 0ahave reacted with anger to US president George W. Bush's decision to 0aveto a bill allowing federal funding for new embryonic stem cell 0aresearch.

    They argue it will damage a promising field of medical research.

    Leading researchers labelled Mr Bush "hypocritical", "out of touch" and "selfish" over his decision not to sign into law a bill approved by Congress.

    Mr Bush argued that the law "crossed a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect".

    Polls suggest most Americans back the research, which scientists hope will lead to cures for serious illnesses such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and diabetes.

    The vetoed bill, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, would have scrapped limits on federal funding imposed by Mr Bush in 2001. It was the first time in his presidency that Mr Bush refused to sign into law a bill approved by Congress.

    The bill failed to reach the two-thirds majority in its Senate vote which would have overturned the presidential veto.

    "Strange Morality"

    In Britain, the President's decision drew anger and derision from the research community.

    It is a strange morality that pins the moral status and life of the embryo on the question of who is paying for the research Graeme Laurie It re-emphasised "how out of touch he is with rational thinking on this issue," said Robin Lovell-Badge, head of developmental genetics at the National Institute for Medical Research.

    The blocking of federal funds for research on embryonic stem cells is "slowing down the global effort to develop therapies for a range of diseases and illnesses," added Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society.

    Mr Bush summed up his opposition to the bill on ethical grounds. "This bill would support the taking of innocent human life of the hope of finding medical benefits for others," he said.

    But Graeme Laurie, an expert in the legal side of medicine from Edinburgh University, said there was an "underlying hypocrisy" in Mr Bush's position.

    "The stated reason for President Bush's objection to embryonic stem cell research is that 'murder is wrong'; why then does he not intervene to regulate or ban [embryonic] stem cell research carried out with private funds and which is happening across the US?" he asked.

    "It is a strange morality indeed that pins the moral status and life of the embryo on the question of who is paying for the research."

    No New Lines

    The 2001 federal funding regulation provides government money only for lines of stem cells that already existed when the order came into effect, not for any new lines.

    But US researchers say that sticking to these lines restricts progress.

    Jeffrey Balser, associate vice-chancellor for research at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, said US institutions were "on the threshold of phenomenal progress in stem cell research.

    "But we are being slowed by these federal restrictions," he told The Tennessean website and newspaper.

    The Senate vote came at the end of two days of emotional debates on three separate stem cell bills.

    Two other less controversial bills received unanimous backing from the Senate, and were signed into law by President Bush.

    One encourages stem cell research using cells from sources other than embryos, and the other bill bans the growing and aborting of foetuses for research.

    The stem cell debate now seems set to be an issue in November's mid-term congressional elections.

 

---

    Go to Original

    Experts Rip Rove Stem Cell Remark
    By Jeremy Manier and Judith Graham
    The Chicago Tribune

    Wednesday 19 July 2006

Researchers doubt value of adult cells.

    When White House political adviser Karl Rove signaled last week that President Bush planned to veto the stem cell bill being considered by the Senate, the reasons he gave went beyond the president's moral qualms with research on human embryos.

    In fact, Rove waded into deeply contentious scientific territory, telling the Denver Post's editorial board that researchers have found "far more promise from adult stem cells than from embryonic stem cells."

    The administration's assessment of stem cell science has extra meaning in the wake of the Senate's 63-37 vote Tuesday to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The measure, which passed the House last year, will now head to Bush, who has vowed to veto it.

    But Rove's negative appraisal of embryonic stem cell research-echoed by many opponents of funding for such research-is inaccurate, according to most stem cell research scientists, including a dozen contacted for this story.

    The field of stem cell medicine is too young and unproven to make such judgments, experts say. Many of those researchers either specialize in adult stem cells or share Bush's moral reservations about embryonic stem cells.

    "[Rove's] statement is just not true," said Dr. Michael Clarke, associate director of the stem cell institute at Stanford University, who in 2003 published the first study showing how adult stem cells replenish themselves.

    If opponents of embryonic stem cell research object on moral grounds, "I'm willing to live with that," Clarke said, though he disagrees. But, he said, "I'm not willing to live with statements that are misleading."

    Dr. Markus Grompe, director of the stem cell center at the Oregon Health and Science University, is a Catholic who objects to research involving the destruction of embryos and is seeking alternative ways of making stem cells. But Grompe said there is "no factual basis to compare the promise" of adult stem cells and cells taken from embryos.

    Grompe said, "I think it's a problem when [opponents of embryonic research] make a scientific argument as opposed to stating the real reason they are opposed-which is [that] it's a moral, ethical problem."

    Last week, the journal Science published a letter from three researchers criticizing the claim that adult stem cells are preferable to embryonic stem cells. The authors included Dr. Steven Teitelbaum of Washington University in St. Louis, who has used adult stem cells to treat bone diseases in children. The authors wrote that the exaggerated claims for adult stem cells "mislead laypeople and cruelly deceive patients."

    The bill heading for Bush's desk would expand federal funding of work on stem cells taken from embryos. Such cells come from extra embryos originally created for in-vitro fertilization. Many experts believe embryonic stem cells could one day help regenerate damaged tissue for patients with conditions such as diabetes, spinal cord injury or Parkinson's disease, though embryonic cells have not yet been tested in humans.

    Adult stem cells, which usually come from bone marrow transplants or umbilical cord blood, are widely considered less flexible than embryonic stem cells in forming many types of tissue. Yet adult stem cells already are in common use for certain conditions, such as replenishing immune cells after cancer treatment and treating some bone and blood disorders.

    Bush allowed limited funding of embryonic stem cell work in August 2001, but he banned funding of cells taken from embryos after that date. However, private foundations and companies have continued to fund new embryonic research.

    Many scientists and lawmakers argue that the federal funding limitation has hindered progress.

    White House spokesman Ken Lisaius on Tuesday could not provide the name of a stem cell researcher who shares Rove's views on the superior promise of adult stem cells.

    One of the only published scientists arguing that adult stem cells are better is David Prentice, a former professor of life sciences at Indiana State University and now a fellow at the Family Research Council, a conservative advocacy group.

    The letter to Science last week was critical of a list Prentice compiled of 72 diseases that have been treated with adult stem cells.

    Yet most of the treatments on the list "remain unproven," wrote Teitelbaum of Washington University and his co-authors, who claimed that Prentice "misrepresents existing adult stem cell treatments."

    Prentice said in an interview that the Science authors "put words in our mouths"-he never claimed that the adult stem cell therapies were proven, only that they had benefited some patients. But he said some of his citations were unwarranted..

    "We've cleaned up that list now," he said. Asked how the errors occurred, he said, "I think things just got stuck in."

    One of the scientists on Prentice's list is Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg, a pediatric hematologist at Duke University Medical Center who has used umbilical cord blood to treat Tay-Sachs disease and other rare disorders. Kurtzberg said it's wrong to see stem cell science as a competition with only one winner.

    "We don't know enough about the potential of either kind of cell," Kurtzberg said. "I don't think one type is going to be the answer to everything."