Former TX Governor: "Bush hindering science"

[Epitome22]

Former Texas governor accuses administration of hindering science
By RYAN LENZ Associated Press Writer
August 11, 2004

PORTLAND, Maine- Former Texas Gov. Ann Richards accused the Bush administration Wednesday of allowing ideology instead of science to guide federal limits on funding for stem cell research.

Speaking at a campaign rally for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry days after the third anniversary of President Bush's decision to limit funding of embryonic stem cell research, Richards said ideology should never invade policy.

"I really do not believe in politicizing scientific issues," said Richards, who lost her re-election bid for governor to Bush in 1994. "Scientific research should not be held back because of right-wing political ideologies."

Richards said it is dangerous when ideology supplants scientific truth, especially when research holds the promise of helping millions affected by debilitating disease.

To emphasize the point, Richards told those at the rally about Miriam "Ma" Ferguson, a Texas governor during the 1920s. The driving issue then was whether to punish school children for speaking Spanish, she said.

"They asked Ma how she stood on the issue, and she said if the English language was good enough for Jesus Christ, it was good for the schoolchildren of Texas," Richards said. "There are still people who believe Jesus Christ spoke English. And they all voted for George Bush."

Religious groups oppose stem cell research in which culling of stem cells kill developing embryos. They equate the process with abortion and do not want Bush to be the first president to fund the research _ even with limits.

But proponents of the science, including former first lady Nancy Reagan, argue that such research could lead to cures for diseases such as diabetes and Alzheimer's. Former President Reagan suffered from the latter for a decade before his death June 5 due to related pneumonia.

"People like Christopher Reeve hope very much indeed that we open up the scientific research so that we all have an opportunity of the benefits that can come to people who have life altering conditions," Richards said.

With polls showing overwhelming support for stem cell research, Kerry has promised to give scientists more freedom. He has used the word "ban" to describe Bush's actions to limit the research.

Republican officials, however, say Democrats are distorting fact. About $25 million was given to limited embryonic stem cell research during 2003, they said.

"It's politics as usual from the Democratic party," said Dwayne Bickford, executive director of the Maine Republican Party. "(Bush) has provided no road blocks to private or state funding of stem cell research."

While Bush has restricted federal dollars to fund the research, he has not stopped private funding of stem cell research. Researchers and Democrats, however, have said the research has struggled without federal backing.

"Private funding didn't get us to the moon," said Jesse Derris, a Kerry spokesman. "And private funding is not going to find us an answer to every question we have."

[Usually Lurkin]

it's ideology that keeps us from experimenting on the mentally handicapped, or on prisoners or poor people without their knowledge and consent.

should we reopen an Auschwitz and gather as much scientific data as we possibly can? Those Nazis provided a lot of good data, you know. Why should we let any reasoning resembling religious stop us? After all, Cristopher Reeves says it's ok.

[Drbio]

Ann the Wrinkle was critical of Bush?

Gosh! Who could have ever possibly seen that one coming?

[sturm und drang]

Bush is really out of touch with the American public on this one.

64% of Americans are "strongly" in favor of stem cell research. 53% of REPUBLICANS are "strongly" in favor of stem cell research.

I agree with Ann – as does the overwhelming majority of the country.

[Usually Lurkin]

polls don't create right and wrong

[sturm und drang]

Neither do you.

[Usually Lurkin]

I would hope that no one would assume that I did.
Least of all someone making a decision about whether or not to fund stem cell research.

[kg_veteran]

Two thoughts here:

1. The American public is generally misinformed on what "stem cell research" even means.

Most people hear "ban on stem cell research" and mistakenly believe that President Bush wants to ban it altogether. That's just inaccurate. He is only in favor of restricting federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The truth is that he has INCREASED federal funding for placental, adult, and animal stem cell research. You never hear that, of course, but it's the truth nonetheless.

I suspect that many people believe that by restricting federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, Bush is somehow preventing us from finding an immediate cure to horrible diseases like cancer and AIDS. That's simply inaccurate and untrue.

2. Why do politicians gripe about the "politicizing" of issues?

Any time a politician speaks, they are "politicizing" issues. The comments by Richards are no exception.

[u2sarajevo]

On the issue of stem-cell research I have to say that I have a love-hate stance on it. As a Type I Diabetic I could personally benefit from this type of research. I have had candid conversations with my Doctor (Endocrinologist) about this issue.

He explained to me the excitement of being able to plant stem-cells in a dead Pancreas (like mine) and having it regenerate the Islet cells that produce insulin and allow me to no longer wear the insulin pump (or take the shots that I took for 15 years pre-pump days) I have been wearing constantly for the last 3 years.

However, I don't want to benefit nor do I care to benefit if that means that a baby had to forfeit their life for me to do so.

[Chiwas]

I recalled Fox, our president -lower case-, saying a speech to very poor people (I think it was in Chiapas): "you're very fortunate to not be able to read, you can't read the newspapers".

[LRB]

Funny how Dems like Ann Richards seem to skip over a lot of the facts to make their point. Stem research has ethical and moral issues no matter which side you chose. I don't blame Bush for being cautious with federal funds. While private funds may not have gotten use to the moon they have successfully gotten use into space by orders of magnitude cheaper than any public funded programs. Spaceship One made history being the 1st private spaceship to enter space on a spartan budget of about $20 million total cost to build and launch from scratch. That's only a fraction of what a space shuttle launch costs much less the shuttle itself.

[chumdawg]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
Bush is really out of touch with the American public on this one.

64% of Americans are "strongly" in favor of stem cell research. 53% of REPUBLICANS are "strongly" in favor of stem cell research.

I agree with Ann – as does the overwhelming majority of the country.

I'm willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of Americans have no idea what stem cell research is.

And of the small minority that does, I think KG made excellent points about how this issue is being misrepresented.

[sturm und drang]

Okay, so now we're pooh-poohing pols because Americans don't understand the intricacies of the definitions, the science involved, etc.

Interesting.

How many Americans understand the intricacies of the war in Iraq? Or of abortion? Or of, heck, any other major issue? Just because it's a somewhat complicated issue doesn't invalidate a poll that happens to contradict what you think.

If Bush's stance on stem cell research is so enlightened, please explain why Ron Reagan Jr. felt compelled to speak at the DNC?

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
Just because it's a somewhat complicated issue doesn't invalidate a poll that happens to contradict what you think.

I'm not trying to invalidate the poll; I do think it's useful to contemplate what the results of the poll really mean. You didn't cite where you found the poll, but as far as I can tell the poll doesn't differentiate between the various types of stem cell research, nor does the poll talk about whether stem cell research should be federally funded or not. For all I know, those "64% of Americans" and "53% of Republicans" might simply be in favor of doing stem cell research -- something that Bush believes as well.

If Bush's stance on stem cell research is so enlightened, please explain why Ron Reagan Jr. felt compelled to speak at the DNC?

Um, because he disagrees with Bush?

[chumdawg]

Sturm, I didn't mean to pooh-pooh the poll strictly on the basis of whether people know all the intricacies. Mostly, I meant to pooh-pooh your suggestion that "the overwhelming majority of the country" agrees with Ann Richards.

You presented the poll as simply "64% of Americans" this and "53% of Republicans" that. My guess is that the poll truly indicated something like "64% of Americans who feel that they are informed about stem cell research strongly support it."

That's quite a different thing than assigning that opinion to 64% of ALL Americans, wouldn't you agree?

[sturm und drang]

I heard it on MSNBC on Monday morning. It was a poll conducted over the weekend, and it was not modified by "people who feel they are well-informed." Even the Republican Senator interviewed admitted the majority of Americans are support of more support for and less restrictions on stem cell research. I wish I could find the specific stat they referenced, but I did find another:

"The first public opinion survey after Reagan's death shows that 74% of Americans say they are more likely to support stem cell research in the wake of his death, including 79% of moderates, 62% of conservatives, and 62% of fundamentalist or evangelical Christians.

"The bottom line is that when roughly 3 of 4 Americans think Nancy Reagan is right in pressing the Bush White House to lift restrictions on stem cell research what you have is a fundamental shift in the way average Americans look at this issue," says Civil Society Institute President Pam Solo."

[kg_veteran]

Sturm - I did a quick search and found a reference to the poll in a column by James Pinkerton at Newsday. Here's the relevant quote:

"A poll just released by The Economist magazine and YouGov, a survey firm, finds that about 65 percent of Americans support stem-cell research, even when told that such research would involve "potentially viable human embryos."

Link to full article

So it sounds like the poll did inform the participants that it meant all forms of stem cell research, including embryonic stem cell research. It doesn't sound like it addressed the federal funding of stem cell research.

[Mavdog]

Bush is trying to have it both ways on this issue.

On the one hand, he has made federal funds available to research something like 79 existing stem cell "lines" I believe it is called.

On the other hand, only those lines can be used so no additional lines can be developed.

No government money can be used to develop any additional lines. There is private money also working but not much. Universities have some programs, but unless they have a wealthy donor there is not any money, they rely on government grants for the most part.

Some of these lines have already ceased to develop, so if the trend continues there may not be much to work on. Potential unrealized.

The stem cell research holds tremendous potential for help on many diseases which we do not have any cure for. It is inconceivable that this potential will be unexplored due to the existing lines failing to continue their development.

Stem cell research must be continued, the ban on new lines is hindering that opportunity.

[dude1394]

No governement money can be made to develop any additional lines but all government money can be used for adult stem cells, which if I remember correctly have been more fruitful than the embryonic stem cells.

Stem cell research IS being continued and also from what I understand the private dollars are dwarfing the federal ones.

It would be nice if this discussion could be carried out with respect to facts and not hyperbole, but I fear that as usual everyone is trying to make political hay out of it. The pro-stem cell proponents do not respect the anti-embryonic stem cell opponents morality issues because they don't have the same.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
No government money can be made to develop any additional lines but all government money can be used for adult stem cells, which if I remember correctly have been more fruitful than the embryonic stem cells.

no, from what I have read you have it backwards, adult cells are much more fragile and less able to be worked with.

Stem cell research IS being continued and also from what I understand the private dollars are dwarfing the federal ones.

there's not much ($60 Million?) in federal dollars.

It would be nice if this discussion could be carried out with respect to facts and not hyperbole, but I fear that as usual everyone is trying to make political hay out of it. The pro-stem cell proponents do not respect the anti-embryonic stem cell opponents morality issues because they don't have the same.

if you're saying they don't have the same issues, yes you're correct. However it has become a political issue with the restrictions being imposed.

BTW this is an example of a Bush flip flop. He said he wouldn't allow for any funding during his campaign and then he switched. I'm glad he changed his mind, but nonetheless it was a flip flop....

[dude1394]

Although this article DOES agree with you that adult stem cells are more fragile and difficult, it seems that they are also at least as useful as ES as they don't develop into tumours because of uncontrolled growth. Your assertion that just because it's easier to work with ES's doesn't necessarily correlate that they are more effective. This is my point, neither you nor I, nor many know the facts here. I'd like the see the issue debated and not politicised.

stemcells

When working with these two types of cells, there are many differences that must be considered. Embryonic stem cells multiply easily in vitro and are more easily coaxed into producing specific cell types. Unfortunately, they can also more easily generate cells out of control. Normally stem cells are kept in check by T lymphocytes, which destroy stem cells when they are no longer needed. When embryonic stem cells are transplanted, they are not under the protection of these T cells and are at risk for developing into tumors (Labat, 2001). Therefore, while ES cells are easier to grow in the lab they are riskier to transplant. Adult stem cells, which come from bone marrow, brain tissue, fat, skin and gut, are less proliferative, but also pose little risk of tumors. They have more difficulty growing in vitro; however, as scientists have further studied stem cells, they have been able to grow them without difficulty. Currently, only adult stem cells are actually being used in clinical trials. The embryonic stem cells are being used to gather information about how stem cells grow and differentiate.

By transplanting stem cells into people with genetic diseases, they could begin growing new tissue or the cells could theoretically be induced to differentiate into specific types of tissue, which could then be used for transplants. Stem cells are thought to hold the key to treating many diseases, which have for years seemed incurable. Normal pancreatic islet cells could be given to diabetics whose own pancreases do not produce insulin. Neural cells could be transplanted to help Alzheimer‚s patients, or brain tissue for those suffering from Parkinson‚s disease.

Until recently, it was thought that only ES cells could be used for this purpose. New research, which has discovered that adult stem cells can reprogram themselves to take on a new function when they are in a new environment, changes this notion. The first report of this was stem cells from the brain being transplanted into the bone marrow of mice and the subsequent production of blood cells (Science, 1999). This process takes longer than using ES cells which may be due to the cells having to return to their unspecialized state and then learn a new function. This finding in mice may or may not apply to humans.

Here is another note of adult stem cells being possibly more promising than ES.

stemcells

S.1 There are scientific aspects of cloning and stem cell research which need to be clarified before ethical questions are posed. In particular, it seems that research on adult stem cells is comparably advanced to and perhaps more promising than research on embryonic stem cells. Further, the results of attempting to clone non-human animals cast serious doubt on the safety of cloning for transplantation, as well as cloning for birth (see sections 1.1.1-2.4.1).

[dude1394]

And what is wrong with this model?

Scientists, activists and politicians are working to get around President Bush's policy that restricts federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research to experiments on stem cell lines created before Aug. 9, 2001.

Individual states and academic institutions are deciding to forfeit federal funding to conduct research on stem cell lines that are not listed on the National Institutes of Health official registry, and they are hoping to replace those federal dollars with a mix of state and private funding.

The biggest of these efforts is the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative, an effort seeking voter approval of a plan to borrow $3 billion to annually fund $295 million worth of stem cell research in the state for 10 years.

Last year, California became the first state to specifically allow embryonic stem cell research, and New Jersey became the second this year. But neither state's Legislature allocated funding for conducting such research.

Money will be on the way if California voters OK the $3 billion referendum and the New Jersey Legislature supports Gov. James McGreevey's plan to combine $6.5 million in state money with private funds of $3.5 million to create the New Jersey Institute for Stem Cell Research. McGreevey hopes to find $50 million in state and private funding to make a five-year commitment to stem cell research.

"It would make us the first state in the country that puts a financial commitment behind the research," said Assemblyman Neil Cohen, who sponsored the original New Jersey bill.

[Mavdog]

There is no reason that scientists should need to "get around" federal regs. Most States do not have the money to fund the research on their own.

[dude1394]

There is also nothing in the constitution that says scientists SHOULD get federal dollars either. Just as they've banned cloning there are ethical issues here that some are not willing to just blow off.

[dude1394]

Bush statement on stem cell research to larry king.

G. BUSH: Well, here's the decision I made. As Laura said, there had been no federal dollars given to embryonic stem cell research. I decided that there were existing lines which could provide promising potential discovery. As a matter of fact, there's 22 active lines now which has led to over a couple of hundred projects being explored off those lines.

When you say stem cell line, that stem cell line can yield different cells, groups that can be used by scientists. And there's hundreds of scientists now doing research based upon my decision.

What I did say was that because a stem cell is derived from the destruction of a human embryo, that there's an ethical dilemma as well. And I believe that the expenditure of taxpayers' dollar on future destruction of human embryos was something we ought to consider very carefully. As a matter of fact, I listened to a panel of ethicists and made the decision that the stem cell lines which existed was ample for federal research.

KING: Don't you think though that the good would outweigh the bad? There's good and bad in a lot of things.

G. BUSH: That's the big debate, Larry, and this country has got to be very careful on destroying life to save life. And it's a debate that needs to move forward in a very careful way. And I listen very carefully to ethicists who impressed me about being cautious and respecting human life, I guess, is the best way to put it. And that's one issue, embryonic stem cell.

The other issue is therapeutic human cloning which I am against. And I think that leads down a slippery slope for people kind of -- designer clones. And so it's a classic discussion between ethics and science.

[LRB]

Ethics should never be solely turned over to scientists to decide. It is a question that everyone has a right to have an equal say in. Science can never give us absolute answers, only a very educated guess. Science has made and continues to make mistakes. But ethics involves so much that is hard to measure nor quatify in a scientifc manner. God help us all if we ever throw ethics completely out the window in favor of science.