Prepare for the lies about Bush “banning” embryonic stem cell research
Posted on June 20, 2007
Bush has banned ESCR just like he has banned my daughter from attending the local posh private school or like I’ve been banned from going to the movies. Just because something is not paid for by the federal government, doesn’t mean it’s banned, but that’s what the ESCR zealots would have you believe. Anyway, why would the federal government be funding what is now a fairy tale when other stem cell treatments and therapies are available and have been more clinically successful than the up-to-now complete failure that is ESCR? Add that to recent news that other cells may be converted into what amounts to ESC, which would allow for scientists to do the research they promise will lead to the cure to everything , and we have even more reason to applaud President Bush for vetoing this bill.
Reuters: Bush will veto popular stem-cell bill: aides
President George W. Bush on Wednesday will veto legislation to expand federally funded embryonic stem cell research, aides said, triggering an uphill battle in the Democratic-led Congress to override him.
Two-thirds majority votes would be needed in the Senate and House of Representatives to overcome Bush’s opposition and make the bill law, and backers conceded at this point they are short of support.
In addition to vetoing such legislation for the second time in two years, Bush will issue an executive order to encourage scientists to work with the federal government to derive new methods to obtain stem cells without harming human embryos, aides said, adding he would announce no new funding.
The action was not expected to ease criticism of the president’s opposition to the stem-cell measure, which polls show is backed by more than 60 percent of the American public.
The president and other critics condemn the legislation as morally offensive because it would lead to destruction of human embryos to derive stem cells.
“The president supports and encourages stem cell research — including using embryonic lines — as long as it does not involve creating, harming or destroying embryos. That is an ethical line that should not be crossed,” a White House spokesman said.
But backers note the legislation would only permit scientists to use embryos left over from fertility treatments that would otherwise be discarded. They also say it could clear the way for possible medical breakthroughs that could help millions of people suffering with debilitating diseases.
Shortly after Bush took office in 2001, he allowed federal funding on 78 stem cell lines then in existence. Most turned out to be of limited use to scientists, who have urged the president to lift his restrictions.
The reason the bill is “popular,” I suspect, is that supporters have been very successful in suckering the half-conscious public into believing that “no federal funds=ban” and that all the paralyzed people in America will stay that way if we don’t immediately open a government embryo factory. The “restrictions” are no restrictions at all. If the “promise” of ESCR is so great, let the free market rush to pour billions and billions into it. If this research holds as much “promise” as its backers claim, I’m sure one of the Big Pharms would love to go down in history as funding the cures for cancer, paralysis, AIDS, restless leg syndrome, malicious gossip, overcooked hamburgers and mothers-in-law. No reason for the federal government (read: you and me) pump billions into the pie-in-the-sky.
Redstate has a detailed analysis of the response including the accompanying Executive Order, which sounds pretty common-sensical and “pro-science”: Showing the Way on Stem Cells
As predicted:
Daily Kos: “Bush preventing the stem cell research”
Congressman Chris Murphy of Conn. (via Daily PsyKosis): “today, the President chose to deny access to medically justifiable and ethical stem cell research”
Nancy Pelosi: “it is irresponsible for the President and many Congressional Republicans to stand in the way of such progress”
“Clinton Pledges to Lift Ban on Stem Cell Research as President”
Final note: the Big Message from the Left has been pounded pretty hard and pretty effectively from an objective standpoint. The Big Message summarized: In furtherance of an ideology over science agenda, Bush has stolen the hope of all Americans with every disease known to man by vetoing this bipartisan measure which is supported by an overwhleming majority of Americans. The uniformity of the Left’s response should disabuse the Lefties who accuse Conservatives from working off a sheet of talking points of the notion that their “leaders” aren’t at least as inclined to take a “lockstep” approach to public policy.
Trackback URL
Comments
6 Responses to “Prepare for the lies about Bush “banning” embryonic stem cell research”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Your main point is correct: De-funding != banning.
I disagree with your second point though.
Because bleeding edge research is one of the few things government should be doing. Pharms are great at incremental discoveries and applied science, but the giant leaps always seem to come from the non-profits. The return on investment is just so far out and so risky on something like that, that even the biggest pharm isn’t going to make a huge effort at it.
A blockbuster treatment might pay for the risk, but there’s no way a cure would. In the words of scientist-extraordinaire Chris Rock:
And by the way, it is a testament to the power of doublethink that he could say
with a straight face.
“Pharms are great at incremental discoveries and applied science, but the giant leaps always seem to come from the non-profits.”
Jeff, I’d love to get some evidence that this is true. We had an earlier exchange about this general topic and we know where we stand, so it’s probably pointless to get into a protracted conversation, but I do need some evidence of the above claim.
I see what you are saying about cure vs. treatment and from a rational analysis of the pure immediate bottom-line perspective it may hold up. But there is also the reputation factor you are not weighing. With all the PROMISES, PROMISES, PROMISES that ESCR is the cure-all AND treat-all miracle-in-waiting, I find it unfathomable that the Biggies in Big Pharm wouldn’t be in mad dash mode to be the heroes of history…unless ESCR can’t deliver the goods it claims in demanding federal funding. Risk is part of business, but listening to the ESCR zealots, there is NO RISK — this IS THE MAGIC PILL. If it really were, Big Pharm would be all over it. Big Pharm is not. I must run the flag up the BS pole.
I know very little about medicine, so I doubt I could cite convincing examples. It’s very easy to visualize in other branches of science.
Private industry was just beginning to make flight available to common people when our government decided to fire one straight up into space. 40+ years later is only just now becoming available to the superwealthy. It’ll probably be 30-40 more years before it’s within reach of the middle class. There’s no way a private enterprise would have invested in a product cycle that long.
They would have gotten there eventually, but it would have been a slow, methodical march.
One can only imagine how far behind we’d be if Einstein was under even the slightest bit of pressure to work on marketable research.
Look back at any of the great minds of history. Da Vinci, Copernicus, Newton, Curie. They’re all academics and/or government employees.
Now look at the flip side. Dow is a huge company that produces countless inventions every year. Many of them are taken for granted these days. Can you think of one that will find a place in the history books?
And I wouldn’t even go so far as to say “immediate”. Smart companies are certainly investing in the future, but there are limits to how far they can lean. The bulk of a companies resources have to be focused on near future because the mid- and far-futures are meaningless if the company doesn’t survive long enough to capitalize on them.
Yes, reputation is a factor, but I don’t think it’s a very big one. The pharms don’t even promote themselves as a brand. All of their advertising goes into the individual products. I doubt 10% of the people in this country could name 3 of the top 10 pharms, yet I’m sure 80% could name the top 10 automakers. That’s not to say reputation couldn’t become a factor in that industry, but it certainly hasn’t yet.
It definitely gets over-hyped, like everything else in this country. Nothing is a sure thing and it certainly isn’t something that will be put to practical use in 5 years (probably 10 or more years out), but if the basic theories are correct, the upside is limitless.
Think about it, if we really do learn to manipulate cells like we do steel, what isn’t possible? There will certainly be tough moral dilemmas along the way, but that doesn’t mean we should stop exploring. There was a time when surgery was morally suspect and I don’t think there are many that regret our decision to pursue it anyways.
Hey Glib - I have an idea, let’s all write Hitlery and Pelousy and ask them for $100K to go back to school and pay off bills, WHEN they refuse, we then use their logic to argue that the Dems have BANNED US from going back to school and becoming debt free. When the left argues that they just “refused to give us more money” as opposed to “banning us”, we then say “isn’t that EXACTLY WHAT BUSH DID?” How long do you think it would take for either their head to explode, or us to be called racists (or something like that).
There are hundreds of thousands of human embryos that were created for in vitro fertilization that are destroyed because the couples have no more use for them. Instead of using (the eventually discarded) embryos to save lives with this research their existence will have no purpose.
The real impetus of Bush’s veto on this legislation is his right-wing base’s stance on abortion. That belief the human life starts at conception; if that’s the case then how can anyone reconcile tossing out these zygotes as medical waste versus using them for the purpose of possibly improving the quality and duration of lives for those already born. Maybe even you are someone you love and care for.