You're right about the veto, and it will be very unfortunate if this is the hill Bush chooses to die on. He should have shown spine on a number of other issues and accepted that his job would be in some circumstances to check Congress, however loathesome it is [or I believe he finds it] to undo their work. It's awfully late to attempt this now, but I think it's in character. Bush's made no bones about how he sees the issue of life in this culture, and what he is willing to do about it.

This is really an issue of your tax dollars at work, not whether it's legal to conduct embryonic stem cell research; I'm not sure where you stand on the issue of a reasonable tax burden.

I've blogged about advances in diabetes - the long-shot one at that - and I probably shouldn't have overlooked the UK/Korean one via stem cells, but in retrospect I don't see that any great progress has been made other than to clone an embryo. The barriers are the same as with islet cell transplants, while islet cells are easier to come by. [There is no legal ban against cloning, though the FDA has claimed authority it can't enforce; it's only in violation of the Clinton ban on cloning funding to afford federal funding for cloning, much like Bush's limit to ESC funding.] I recognize diabetes as one of the major health issues in the US for the foreseeable future.

The market is a better place for this competition than the limited stipend of government funding: Why is the market starving ESC research? Enterprise is interested in success, not morals, and knows that if a cure were to be produced, public outcry wouldn't keep customer-patients from ponying up for it.

The market does not move until it sees a profit potential within a somewhat forseeable, mid-term horizon, which is why initial government research it still a vital part of our biotechnology industry. Stem Cells are still a bit of a black box, as you mention, but the potential is vast; exploratory government research is a notable component.

And the Korean achievement was that it essentially just made it feasible to do the initial research by increasing the efficiency of obtaining working material.

Even if I took it for granted that much of the important medical/pharmicological breakthroughs were floated by tax dollars, which I don't, it doesn't explain why the market is ignoring the clamor for this research. The WaPo article quotes reps who've signed on because of personal need, but this fails to move captains of industry? Heck, the Tides Foundation could probably put a pretty awesome lab together without tapping any other of the 57 tax dodge-social engineering Heinz funds and get Edwards' firm to defend it, should anyone attempt to drag it down through litigation.

You supported Bush for the GWOT, which is reasonable, but as I pointed out the limited-ESC funding issue is also consistent GWB. You may not support this aspect, but - especially considering the support in Congress that works for you on this one - why is this a GWB issue? Do you think the veto won't get an override?

I have a hard time understanding why it's so important for the federal government to fund the research. It's not like Bush is preventing the private sector from utilizing discarded embryos. If there is that much potential, I would think they'd be all over it.

I'm sure the media and pundits will make a huge deal out of it when he vetos it- but knowing the man, I don't see how you could expect him to not veto it. Agree or disagree, I'd be disappointed if my CiC went against one of his core principles due to political pressure.

The veto does not have enough votes to get an override.

This may be classic Bush as far as consistency, but it's wrong, as it strategically weakens us. And if holding up America's scientific advantage solidifies as a hallmark of the GOP, and the pivotal turning point for establishing Middle Eastern Democracy was the 2004 election result, then it's possible that it's time to weight the options come 2008, and certainly try to impact some close far-rightie held house and Senate races in 2006.

As for your tax dollars at work, start with the most comprehensive database of medical research in the world ...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed

... and move on to looking at the public sector origins of the laser, the Internet and mapping DNA.

If there is that much potential, I would think they'd be all over it.

And again I must repeat myself ...

Business is moving on it, but the effort is severely hampered without government investment in basic research, as it has no predictable profit motive; it's just untapped, huge YET vague potential.

Government grants are vital to our country's scientific advancement, as results are not tied to turning a near-term profit. This research forms the basis of complementary private sector research that develops applications.

Some perspective:

Federal funding in the broad field of health-related research was slightly less than $16
billion in 1999. R&D investments by research-based pharmaceutical companies were 21.1 billion in 1998.

Private sector investment by all of the pharmaceutical companies combined was only 30% higher than the federal funding. And private sector investment focuses on relatively narrow business goals and treatment, not very speculative, black box research.

Read all of this for more:

http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/pne/pubs/fundscience/summary.htm

I appear to be in the minority in supporting a veto by W of this bill. I do believe that it is wrong to harvest embryos for parts (even if this may seen like a benighted viewpoint to most of the posters here). Therefore, I don't want tax dollars used for this purpose. This stand is the moral equivalent of those who don't want their taxes spent on the military, a view that I disagree with but respect. I always encourage the fiscal pacifist to go for it, using the political process. I feel the same about this issue.

This is just a use of the political process to achieve what I view as a good end. If the veto is overriden, I won't approve but I will accept and simply redouble my attempts to convert others to my medival views.

Tob

The Administration seems willing to grant money for umbilical cord and adult stem cell research, why must it be embryonic?

Yes, I know the idea of some huge medical breakthrough gets everyone all giddy, but on the outside chance it happens... where do we get our continued supply of embryos? (I've read the material relating to the MA bill, so that's somewhat of a rhetorical question) It's a bit too Brave New Worldish for my taste- I understand that you disagree.

I'd say fund the other avenues of research, and see how things play out elsewhere. But I will bet that within five years we are going to find some serious ethical issues as we travel down this path. I'd prefer to think about them now, rather than later.

where do we get our continued supply of embryos?

As the bill would allow, unused embryos from fertility clinics. I'll try to write up a post on adult vs. embryonic stem cells for you.

Toby928 -

A fair and politically smart attitude.

Given your dollars and cents, I'm unsure what you want to see happen here. You've demonstrated that even where tax money is alotted, it's only so much. What will opening funding for this accomplish, when we can see how little the impact will be - unless you either seriously cut other programs to double the money currently being spent, or you raise taxes to get more money for this purpose.

You note that you are going to do a post on ASC/ESC research. That will be interesting, since I provided links on my post that show there are both therapies and trials for ASCs, but nothing for ESCs, and there is no legislation impeding such research, including cloning. I tried your above link to "the most comprehensive database of medical research in the world," which left me at a portal to conduct more research. No links demonstrating what you were talking about.

But the bottom line is that I don't want any expansion of tax costs or government involvement, and it would be nigh impossible to convince me of a reason to abandon that stance. That's the crux of the argument; the rest - incredibly meaningful as the veto issue, Bush's policies and ESC research are - is to show that the topic itself isn't lacking due consideration. It simply fails on every count to outweigh the argument against government funding.

I like you, tee bee, but some of your points on this are just plain silly to me. Perhaps I'm not understanding.

You've demonstrated that even where tax money is alotted, it's only so much.

Uh huh, it's comparable to all private pharmaceutical research companies combined. In the universe that we all live in, all monetary resources are finite ("so much"), yet $16 billion is a LOT of freaking money. And a HUGE percentage of overall research comes from the government's purse strings, which your previous posts underestimate from some miserly libertarian perspective.

What will opening funding for this accomplish, when we can see how little the impact will be - unless you either seriously cut other programs to double the money currently being spent, or you raise taxes to get more money for this purpose.

No one is talking about raising taxes or specifically cutting anything. The government budgets money, and grants are awarded from this pool of money. It's very simple, and there are always winners and losers looking to get a piece of that pie. Considering the heavy research interest in this, especially by our world reknowned academics at public universities, this would inevitably be a hot area of research taht people would be lining up for grants to conduct.

Putting limits on the direction of research (by limiting vital govt funds), limits the academic marketplace of scientific advancement; it stifles our leading scientist's ability to achieve in areas that they find promising.

Your "this is no big deal," "finite resources" argument is kind of weird. The govt doesnt choose what research is the most promising or fascinating - the scientific community does. The government facilitates this.

There is no expansion of tax resources involved - though I'd argue that that is some of the most well-spent money the government ever has its hands on - it means that Dr. Bob might not get his grant to do behavioral research on the sexual habits of alaskan penguins, because Dr. Steve will get to try and coax stem cells into replacement spinal cord cells for paraplegics.

As far as my link to the database, THAT is an example of your precious tax dollars at work, since you were so "doubtful" that government spending for scientific research was valuable. It is one of the most useful endeavors this country has ever attempted, along with mapping the genome and other publicly funded developments like the laser and the internet.

All done without stupid political restrictions and with awarded government grants.

Very simple.

Thanks for the compliment Bill. I like you too.

You're all over the map and putting words in my mouth in the last comment:

"only so much" - You pointed out the money amounts and ratios and a desire for increased funding for ESC research, which in a budget of trillions, is only so much. Now you say that more money won't be necessary. Good. Agreed.

Your "this is no big deal," "finite resources" argument - Not my words. "[T]o show that the topic itself isn't lacking due consideration," are my words. It is a big deal, but what should be done is one issue, and how it should be funded is another.

I'm not sure why you're taking this whack: "since you were so "doubtful" that government spending for scientific research was valuable;" it's a far cry from the point. It remains to be convincing that ESC research is worth increased government funding. I don't understand the generalizing and equivocation you're employing. For some reason I thought we had more common ground on the issue of taxes and big government. I'd like to think that the difference is just over this issue.

Nonetheless, thanks for the chat. It's very interesting stuff.

tee bee -

YOU are putting words in MY mouth.

You pointed out the money amounts and ratios and a desire for increased funding for ESC research, which in a budget of trillions, is only so much. Now you say that more money won't be necessary.

In some terms I'm calling for an increase in ESC funds, but only in the context that ESC researchers should be able to compete for the available pool. There would be NO INCREASE in overall funding, necessarily; you can't seem to absorb my basic argument. This bill won't hurt your tax rate, but Bob the Penguin Screwing researcher won't be able to do his study, whereas Steve the ESC researcher might.

As for this ...

It remains to be convincing that ESC research is worth increased government funding.

It remains to be seen that about 90% of basic research has convincingly useful applications because ... well, it's friggin basic research. That doesn't mean that informed scientists that are forging ahead in the current biotech revolution can't have a pretty strong hunch that this needs to be researched and could yield fantastic results.

You point to a paucity of ESC studies underway - why do you think that is?! No govt funding, except using approved lines that are polluted with mouse DNA!

* I've given you facts about how important public sector funding is to basic med research, but you don't address it.

* I've described how I don't want any MORE of your tax dollars, just govt lessening moral restrictions on competition for CURRENT govt funds, but you fail to acknowledge it (or understand it), citing that I disagree about "Big Government."

* I've given you rationale why much basic research is NOT conducted by the private sector, because they can't justify the failures or lack of profit that come with basic conceptual research, but you keep insisting that we need to show that ESC research is "worth increased government funding."

It's like banging my head against a wall. I'm over here addressing your points, and you arguing with the crack in the sidewalk 10 feet away.

One more time: this bill is not designed to take any more tax money out of your pocket.

I have a similar opinion on taxes and big government, in the sense that I think that things like the IRS and Dept of Education should be almost dissolved, but I've explained to you (repeatedly now) why government's involvement in scientific research is almost as vital as the post office and the Army in the pantheon of govt services, yet you either don't understand or ignore this vital point.

And I can't tell which. I think we're at an impasse.

This is all temporary; there are two major developments which will make the ASC/ESC distinction moot.

The first is deciphering what the switches are that distinguish ESCs from downstream or Adult stem cells of all types. That will permit reversing them, and tuning of any stem cell for any tissue type.

The second is further off, but full computer emulation of the genome (since DNA is an information storage system, not such a pipe dream, really) will allow both researchers and clinicians to dispense with leftover embryos, and make their own stem cells from "virtual" templates. It might even be automated, like most DNA analysis is now.

The lack of government funding for wet work might paradoxically force US science to leapfrog the whole field into more advanced technology.

Interesting point.

Bill, like you I don't favor a ban on human embryonic stem cell research, but I am a bit skeptical that eventually researchers will settle on embryonic stem cells for therapeutic use. The problem as I understand it is ironically in the very totipotency of these stem cells. Rather than hack up the science I will direct attention to Bill K's comment on Jeff Jarvis' blog.

Thanks. Bill K's comment is talking about specific concerns with the technology that would require research for solutions. The flaw in the research is that animal testing might not yield an accurate result as it comingles with the human material. If, when it works in an animal (assuming a designed therapy would at some point), it might be ethically tried on humans that are terminally ill (if the therapy has shown benefit for that malady in animals).

As far as the possibility of forming cancer, that is also a problem with gene therapy trials in humans, a problem which they're trying to work around.

ESC could be ahuge bust, I don't know. But science needs to determine this, not folks analyzing its merits from a political standpoint (religious, anti-govt spending) backwards through the science.