By issuing the first veto of his Presidency, President George Bush snatched defeat from victory and shot down the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. In so doing, he ignored the will of the people, not to mention scientific and medical advice. That he did this in favor of the wishes of his questionable and dubious political advisors (Rove, Snow, etc) is all the more troublesome. His claim that embryonic stem cell research violates 'the dignity of human life' further evidences that he is badly out of touch with reality. Single-handedly, he dashed the hopes and prayers of millions of American people suffering from a myriad of diseases and disabilities including but not limited to Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

President Bush never received a mandate from the voters on this; he was elected and then reelected by razor thin margins. Yet the operative phrase here is "single-handedly." Some might say that "intellectual arrogance" would be a better fit, as he violated the principle that respects the separation of Church and State with his "faith-based" action......that is, one made on what appear to be his own moral and theological grounds.

Doctors and scientists throughout America have been excited about human embryonic stem cells and their potential in many different areas of health and medical research. They believe these cells, at the very earliest stages of development, hold the key to treating a host of diseases. They feel the study of stem cells will help us understand how they transform into the dazzling array of specialized cells that make us what we are. Some of the most serious medical conditions are due to problems that occur somewhere in this process. A better understanding of normal cell development will allow us to understand and perhaps correct the errors that cause these medical conditions. Another potential application of stem cells is making cells and tissues for medical therapies. Today, donated organs and tissues are often used to replace those that are diseased or destroyed. Unfortunately, the number of people needing a transplant far exceeds the number of organs available for transplantation. Pluripotent stem cells offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat many of the aforementioned diseases.

Opponents of embryonic stem cell research like to tout what they call greater medical advances from adult stem cells, but those claims tend to be exaggerated. Embryonic cells have a much greater ability to regenerate and adapt to the host's needs, so scientists believe they have greater potential to lead to life-saving cures and pain-saving treatments. However, research should continue on both fronts; indeed, on every possible front.

Sen. Bill First, R-Tenn., Senate Majority Leader and a doctor, revived a bill to expand funding for embryonic stem cell research after conservatives who had blocked it withdrew their objections. Urged on by by Nancy Reagan, he and many of his colleagues have spent hours grappling with the ethical implications of these issues, the future of stem-cell research, and how pro-life positions are balanced with the potential for new life and health offered by such research. Senator First states, "....... I've come to realize we must participate in defining research surrounding the culture of life; if not, it will define us." He and others, both Democrats and Republicans, backed a measure passed by the House of Representatives last year, allowing taxpayer dollars to be used for scientific work on potentially hundreds of new stem-cell colonies created from embryos left over from fertility treatments.

But Bush's veto has already chilled the momentum among stem cell researchers. Indeed, In her highly confusing piece in this paper dated August 5, 2006 and entitled, "A Pox on Stem Cell Research," Deborah Blum stated, "....The president's veto appears to create an intractable problem for stem cell researchers and their advocates. How is the research to advance from hopeful to helpful when national policy inhibits the work from being done? Discouraged proponents have suggested that the president's decision, which was applauded by conservative religious groups, has the potential to keep American science locked in the past..." How true. Many scientist are receiving offers from overseas and young researchers simply don't want to invest time in the US if the future of the science is at risk here. But to deprive scientists the freedom to do such research, as Blum seems to want, is to violate their rights--as well as the rights of those who would benefit from such research. This potentially life-saving research must not be delayed.

Of course, with government funding of science, political fighting is inevitable. As David Holcberg of the ARI states, "If science were left free, as it should be, funded solely by private sources, a scientist would not have to plead the merits of his work before a majority of politicians, however ignorant or prejudiced by religious or other dogmas they might be." Yet, off of this action, these politicians ignored 72% of the American people, bi-partisan majorities in both houses of Congress, and our nation's top science and medical experts. Giving in to an extremist, active, and vocal minority that seems to hold disproportionate political influence (in this case, the religious right) is mind-boggling, if not a tragedy.

What, then, are the reasons from the likes of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and James Dobson's to attribute to microscopic embryos and collections of cells a sanctity? Is it based on rational analysis or is it is based purely on religious dogma. As with their attacks on evolution through creationism and so-called Scientific Design, these intellectual dinosaurs want to oppose medical progress with stem cell research at every turn. They remain callously unmoved and seem willing to allow countless human beings to suffer and die for lack of treatments.......so that clusters of cells remain untouched. To call such a stance "pro-life" is patently absurd and, to paraphrase Holcberg, a "profound inversion of the truth." Their stubborn allegiance seems to be more to their dogmas than to a concern for human life or human rights. If they want to deprive themselves of the benefits arising from stem cell research, they certainly should have that right; heck, they should be free to die with such deprivation........to the end.......but their attempt to impose religious dogma on others is downright wrong.

Blum's article gave the false appearance of simple frankness; it was an approach to an issue that it is simply too important to be treated disingenuously. The religious right, Blum, Bush and the veto notwithstanding, embryonic stem cell research is too important for politics and must be allowed to proceed unimpeded. Too many lives depend on it.

"We live in a time when the words impossible and unsolvable are no longer part of the scientific community's vocabulary. Each day we move closer to trials that will not just minimize the symptoms of disease and injury but eliminate them." Christopher Reeve, Testimony to US House of Representative, 1999