Stem Research Bill Passes

In the Senate by a vote of 73 to 27, according to a news alert from the Gerontological Society of America. Tried Googling it but no news yet.

BTW, it's the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which would expand the number of cell lines available for federal funding (see yesterday's post) and allow donated leftover embryos to be used to derive new stem cell lines.

Comments

[DaveInBigD]

As has been done to death yesterday, federal funding of science is a grey area for some of us less hard-core libertarians, but this is sort of good.

If there's going to be federal funding of science, keeping as few strings attached as possible seems like the right idea. Still a half-measure, but under this admin, I'll take what I can get.

[Is that the Carpet Humper in t]

73 to 27. So they should be able to override a veto if Dubya decides that he should finally break one out, right? I'm too lazy to research whether the House has to override it, also, and whether the bill has the support there, etc... hoping someone on here just already knows...

[Angainor]

federal funding of science is a grey area for some of us less hard-core libertarians, but this is sort of good.

Why is this "sort of good" for libertarians?

Those Americans who, for conscience sake, would otherwise (if they were in full possesion of their liberty) have nothing to do with stem cell research now have to pay for it.

[Rick Barton]

Ok Ron, now that the number of cell lines available for federal funding has been expanded, will you please do the principled thing and help oppose that funding. I don't think that Stem cell research will lack for funding with out tax dollars since I hear from this brilliant guy named Bailey that there is lots and lotsa private money going into this research.

[Ron Bailey]

Rick Barton: I hear you. But passage of this bill shows that the tide of public opinion is turning which means that the idiots in DC won't try to ban this research entirely which is what they tried to do only 2 years ago.

[Rick Barton]

Ron,

Yeah, that's good. The vote oughta quell that nonsense.

[Rayilyn Brown]

Re federal funding for research: I can sort of understand well people not wanting to pay for research, but cures have got to be cheaper in the long run than disease which we all pay for. This is why I became a Democrat, not a Libertarian, when the Religious Right seized the GOP. I do believe there are some things the federal govenment can and should do. Private and state funding for ESCR is tied up in litigation or squabbles at the state level. There is no hope at all for people like me. Also, remember you are just a heartbeat away from the disaster of an incurable disease. I am an ovarian cancer survivor and ten year Parkinson's disease prisoner and it steals your life while you are still alive.

[The Real Bill]

R. Brown,

You assume that no research would be done without federal funding. That's a large, unfounded assumption. In your case, both cancer and Parkinson's are common enough that research for those diseases would most likely happen.

Even if I were to come down with a terrible disease, I would not be in favor of enslaving others to find a cure. Nonetheless, I hope they find a cure for Parkinson's before it's too late for you (and my stepfather).

[Rayilyn Brown]

For real, "real bill" the research that is going on is taking place abroad as it has been greatly stymied here in the US. To someone in a wheelchair, time is not an ally.
All kinds of diseases are NOT being cured; polio was the last one. Nothing really new in Parkinson's treatment since I was diagnosed at age 60 ten years ago. As I said I have no hope, but I wouldn't want to enslave or kill "others" to save myself. That is a bit of an exaggeration, Real Bill. I think cells are cells and people are people, you equate stem cells for purposes of research with actual living people. That notion is usually faith-based and very offensive to me.

[Adriana]

The problem with the stem cell research is that many believe that the embryo is a person, and deserving of the protection of the law, not just raw tissue to be harvested. That's the Roman Catholic doctrine.

You may say that an embryo, or a fertilized zygote is not a person, but it is unfair to cathegorize those who value its personhood as being "anti-science" because they do not want to see a human being turned into cattle. They look at it the way we look at the clones in "The Island", with horror at the idea of killing a human being in the assembly line for a supposedly greater good.