The deja vu veto

Every once in a while, one sees something in the news and thinks, 'Haven't I seen this before?'. That's what happened when I saw the story of President Bush's second veto on the BBC News front page.

Today, Bush wasted his third ever veto on something very similar to the thing he vetoed a few years ago: stem cells.

US President George W Bush has vetoed a bill that would have eased restrictions on federally-funded stem-cell research.

He also issued an executive order encouraging scientists to focus on ways to conduct research without using stem cells from human embryos.

Mr Bush said advances must be pursued in a way "that respects human dignity and upholds our moral values".

The Democratic-led Congress is expected to try to override the veto but is unlikely to get enough votes.

Last time Congress had nearly enough votes for an override — which requires 2/3 of both the House and Senate. Now that it is majority-Democrat, the legislature might — although party politics sometimes keep loyalties cemented in votes — have a shot at overriding the executive. Unlike with Iraq, voter risk for Democrats on challenging Bush is low, too. The bill flew easily through Congress up to this point, but can an override happen?

...the issue may provide the opportunity for the first of a wave of veto showdowns during President Bush's last 18 months in office. "The congressional Republican leadership protected the President for his first six years and kept measures that he would veto from ever getting to the White House," says Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "That time is over."

Because his breed of extreme Christianity views anything to do with stem cells as 'immoral', Bush has courted the religious right lobby once again by restricting stem cell research and funding of such research. Back in August 2001 Bush imposed a ban on federally-funded stem cell research.

As a reminder, this is one of the few major issues the majority of the American public actually has a good opinion about. Most Americans are pro-stem cell research, and why shouldn't they be unless they think the little 'snowflakes' — unborn embryos often frozen that are due to be discarded anyways — are some form of unborn life (hint: the unborn part cancels out the living part, they're potential at best but are bound to be destroyed anyways unless used to make babies or, more likely in this case, disposed of or researched).

Can there be life that doesn't in fact live? Is the only way we can fight to defend our freedom to take it away? Those questions would be answered "yes" by many Bush supporters who weld great power with their narrow-minded views of policy on a number of 'moral' and security issues.

Log of Bush vetoes — none of which are positive in my eyes even when he had the opportunity to veto poor legislation that he vowed to nix in the first place! 'The Decider' has threatened to use his veto tens of times, he's very good at instilling fear for his own political aims (think "war on terror").

Veto 1
Date: 20 July 2006
Subject: Funding for and restrictions on stem cell research
Public opinion: For the bill
Status: Long dead

Veto 2*
Date: 1 May 2007
Subject: War funding bill with Iraq troop withdrawal amendment
Public opinion: Mixed, on Iraq
Status: Successor still in the works

Veto 3
Date: 20 June 2007
Subject: Another stem cell bill easing regulations on government funding
Public opinion: Affirmative of the legislation's proposals
Status: Just vetoed... possibility for congressional override if partisanship doesn't rule supreme

Thus George Bush's war on science with misguided morals continues. Considering how important science is to the modern world — especially the prospect of breakthrough in biology and medicine (see The Economist's cover this week) — this administration is moving America backwards, not forwards.

technorati tags: stem-cells, bush, veto, congress, white-house, science, united+states, politics, george+w+bush+vetoes, public+opinion, iraq, funding, bill, legislation

Stem cells in the US, part 1

See post on stem cells and cloned food.
See also this post on the stem cell wars between ideologues and normal people.

From a BBC News Q&A article on the United States and stem cells:

There are religious and social conservatives who oppose abortion and consequently the destruction of embryos required for stem cell research. Many of these are also supporters of Mr Bush.

This junk from the large group of social American conservatives is largely false. Scientists have found that they can do stem cell research without the risk of cloning or injuring a potential baby, yet most of these people have still refused to accept any form of stem cell research or treatment. Bottom line: the majority of staunch American partisans and conservatives are closed-minded and won't go by any of the facts, only the fantasies and fallacies they create in their quasi-moral (e.g. supporting torture of "enemy combatants"; no consented death for those with terminal illnesses?) politic.


technorati tags: stem+cell, stem+cells, united+states, religious+right, christian, conservative, social+conservatives, science, politics, ethics, biology, biotech, technology, commentary, in+perspective, clearthought, news, current, bush

Cloned food, stem cells, and the FDA

So in the United States we are allowed to eat cloned meat but not use stem cell and related techniques that are much less severe than the technological and moral implications of cow (etc.) cloning?

From the Washington Post article:

Three years after the Food and Drug Administration first hinted that it might permit the sale of milk and meat from cloned animals, prompting public reactions that ranged from curiosity to disgust, the agency is poised to endorse marketing of the mass-produced animals for public consumption.

There seems to be an indication that the cloned food is OK for humans, but what about the natural balance? Couldn't this create very negative affecting (to consumers and the ecosystem in which cows, etc., interact) result, from things like genetic mutations?

From the Wired News article:

Consumer watchdog groups are skeptical, and say cloned meat should at least be labeled.

Studies have shown differences between cloned and regular animals, including a higher incidence of genetic and physiological abnormalities in clones. But scientists say these differences don't pose a threat to someone who eats cloned meat.

A 2002 National Academy of Sciences report said there was no evidence that cloned meat was dangerous to eat, but more data was needed to be certain.

Discount or no, it would not be practical for farmers to clone all their cattle rather than breed them normally.

It's unnatural and unethical; cloning — I thought that was wrong!?! Haven't all those scientists been saying so? Americans should not be so willing to put so much shit into their mouths, whether it be cloned, genetically modified, or just really fatty and pumped up on preservatives. I am not one of those vegan health nuts — I like food too much — but the FDA needs to be watching out for consumers, not advancing overzealous meat mass-producers' fantasies. Of course, the Food and Drug Administration has already vastly failed on the "Drug" part, and most of the "Food" part, I guess it is just a matter of time until when one sees the FDA stamp, they will know the food is bad. There is a difference between cloned food that is safe for humans to eat, and cloned food that is safe. At this point, the former may be true, but certainly not the latter.

technorati tags: clone, food, health, ecology, stem+cell, stem+cells, biotech, science, technology, news, politics, in+perspective, in+the+news, clearthought, current+affairs, fda, united+states, usa, cloning