About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Wash. Post article on Bush stem cell plan ignored scientists' support for bill Bush vetoed

June 20, 2007 4:08 pm ET

11 Comments

In a June 20 article, The Washington Post reported that President Bush, upon vetoing a bill to expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, "plans to issue an executive order today to encourage government agencies to support research that offers the promise of creating medically useful stem cells without destroying human embryos." But the article did not report -- as the Post itself did on June 7 -- that some of the scientists involved in one of the research methods Bush is touting as an alternative to embryonic stem cell research have themselves called for passage of the bill Bush just vetoed, which, as the Post reported on June 7, "would give federally funded researchers access to embryos slated for destruction at fertility clinics."

The June 20 Post article reported that Bush planned to veto an embryonic stem cell funding bill and, at the same time, issue the executive order. Among the research breakthroughs that the administration is touting, as the Post noted, is one in which scientists used the skin cells of mice to develop cells with regenerative properties similar to that of a mouse's embryonic stem cell:

President Bush, under increasing pressure to relax his restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, plans to issue an executive order today to encourage government agencies to support research that offers the promise of creating medically useful stem cells without destroying human embryos, according to senior administration officials.

[...]

Recent advances have increased optimism that stem cells with potential for treating diseases or even developing into human organs for transplants can be developed from skin cells, amniotic fluid or even cells salvaged from dead embryos.

[...]

There is some evidence that cells with the capacity to divide and grow into many different tissues exist in the placenta, umbilical cord blood and bone marrow. Winnowing them from other cells and successfully pushing them down a path toward medically useful purposes, however, has been difficult.

Part of the problem is that some of these "adult" stem cells are not as primitive and potent as those extracted from an embryo when it is at the stage of a barely visible ball of cells.

This month, three research teams announced that they were able to coax skin cells from mice to revert into more primitive and potent cells -- the equivalent of going back in time. This raises the possibility that everyone may possess the raw material to make stem cells with the same therapeutic potential as ones from embryos.

Yet the article did not note that scientists involved in the mouse skin cell studies have urged the passing of the bill Bush vetoed. In its June 7 article on the scientists' findings, the Post reported that, despite the breakthrough, the scientists supported federal funding for embryonic stem cell research:

The findings have generated tumult on Capitol Hill, where the House is set to vote today on a bill that would loosen President Bush's 2001 restrictions on the use of human embryos in stem cell research.

Acutely aware that their new work could undermine that key political goal, the scientists cautioned that their success with mouse cells does not guarantee quick success with human cells. They called for Congress to pass the bill, which would give federally funded researchers access to embryos slated for destruction at fertility clinics.

Indeed, as Media Matters for America has noted, one of the study's lead scientists, Rudolf Jaenisch, offered support for embryonic stem cell research a June 6 press release despite his group's findings:

"[A]ll these results are preliminary and proof of principle. It will be awhile before we know what can and can't be done in humans. Human embryonic stem cells remain the gold standard for pluripotent cells, and it is a necessity to continue studying embryonic stem cells throughout traditional means."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by bingvangorden (June 20, 2007 4:23 pm ET)
         

      Um, sorry but embryos aren't used. these are clusters of cells made in a petri dish and frozen. If one is against this practice I don't know how they reconcile in vitro fertilization. 

      Personally I just want to kill babies because as a liberal I of course hate life and embrace the culture of death.  

      Report Abuse
      • Author by duncan12347948 (June 20, 2007 5:29 pm ET)
           

        Wash. Post did on 6/7 point out that scientists were in favor of the bill as MMFA pointed out. So MMFA proved them selves wrong within their own posting.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (June 20, 2007 6:45 pm ET)
             

          Read it again, Duncan.With everything you've got!

          Report Abuse
      • Author by NotThatGeorge (June 20, 2007 5:38 pm ET)
           

        If they object to the use, then they should also be protesting outside of every in-vitro fertilization clinic every day, because these clinics medically dispose of unwanted fertilized eggs every day.

        They don't protest. Therefore they are being hypocrites.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by djasper2761 (June 20, 2007 6:15 pm ET)
             

          Lets save every egg and sperm. They are potential human life. Just think, a very small %age COULD be reared in Tx. and a small percentage of those COULD be executed in Tx. That is what I call the cycle of life according to bush. You are right. The veto of this bill is another glaring indication of the perverted thinking of the right. "You can't use those for research! We have to incenerate them cause they are the "unwanted". The right=junk science (or the lack of it).

          Report Abuse
        • Author by AmericanMutt (June 21, 2007 11:03 am ET)
             

          the most effective 'protest', if anti-choice folks were honest anyway, is (since according to what they pay lip-service to claims women need to be subservient) to make sure that each and every womb the 'big daddy' has in his family is filled with snowflake babies. Hell, they could impregnate every female in their 'family' from 13 (biblically supported) to 93 with litters of kids they can 'save'.

           

          Funny how that isn't happening... 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (June 21, 2007 1:28 pm ET)
               

            I've read some pretty weird stuff today but I think yours tops the list.

            Report Abuse
        • Author by anotheramerican (June 21, 2007 1:24 pm ET)
             

          NTG,

          I don't suppose you spend your free time going to anti-Bush demonstrations do you?

          So what does that make you?  

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 21, 2007 3:24 pm ET)
               

            So what does that make you?

            Judging from what you posted, it makes him the recipient of incoherent and irrational questions.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (June 21, 2007 1:22 pm ET)
           

        Thanks Bing for being so up front about it.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 21, 2007 3:25 pm ET)
             

          Thanks, AA for once again being so small-minded that if sarcasm were strapped to the belly of a snake it would still sail right over your head.

          Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.