BY ARIKIA MILLIKAN
Daily Staff Reporter
Published October 2, 2007
President Bush used the first veto of his presidency to block a bill that would ease the strict regulations on stem cell research. It was 2001, and the prospect of trying to cure disease by using parts of human embryos for experimentation, even if the embryos were going to be discarded anyway, ignited righteous passions in politicians on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately for stem cell researchers, when the bill was shot down upon reaching the Oval Office, congress couldn't muster the votes to override the veto.
More like this
Since then, scientists have managed to find ways around the restrictive laws and absence of federal support. Michigan has some of the strictest laws in the country, but on the fifth floor of the Undergraduate Life Sciences Building at the University is a state-of-the-art stem cell laboratory staffed with world class scientists. Getting it wasn't easy, though. The University had to raise money from private donors instead of relying on governmental funding, and it had to get the actual stem cells donated from other states because it's illegal to do the necessary procedures here.
As with many battles between science and politics, science has adapted and even outpaced political limitations, but the future of stem cell research is by no means certain. The fate of the University's lab and others like it will rest largely in the hands of the man or woman elected to replace Bush in 2008.
The Statement takes a look at the current batch of political contenders to see where they stand on the issue that could make or break the laboratories that might produce the cures to hundreds of diseases.
Democrats
It's commonly understood that there is widespread Democratic support for stem cell research. But if this is true, there are a lot of silent crusaders.
Even on the far left, there are candidates who are staying fairly quiet on the issue. Of course, it's not enough of a hot-button topic to require a detailed position from every candidate, as health care or the Iraq war does, but what candidates volunteer about an issue before they're asked says a lot about their priorities.
For example, scouring the online campaign literature of the former Democratic senator from Alaska, Mike Gravel, yields hardly any information about his position on stem cells. And he hasn't brought it up in any of the presidential debates.
"It's not a good sign when you're running, and nobody can find (your stem cell policies) on the web," said Sean Morrison, the director of the University's center for stem cell biology.
The same might be said of Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), another presidential candidate, who has voted in support of but isn't vocal about stem cell research. His rival Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) on the other hand, has been forthcoming with support.
As for the frontrunners, Senators Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and former senator John Edwards, all strongly support stem cell research. Morrison, who works directly with embryonic stem cells in his day-to-day research, gave both Clinton and Obama a "two thumbs up." He said they were among the candidates who not only have a voting record that supports stem cell research but also have a history of action.
The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which Clinton, Obama and 39 other senators co-sponsored, aimed to allow funding for derivation of stem cell lines from human embryonic tissue created in excess of need at fertility clinics, where thousands of day-old zygotes will remain frozen until they are thawed and discarded.
For his part, while he was in the senate, Edwards took some heat from then-Senate majority leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) after he called for more resources for stem cell research following the death of actor Christopher Reeve, but it didn't deter him. Today, Edwards says his wife Elizabeth's cancer is a driving force behind his support of the issue.
Mark Prince, the chief of the otolaryngology section for the Veteran's Affairs Ann Arbor Health Care System and who works with non-embryonic cancer stem cells, said that from his understanding of Clinton and Obama's platforms, he thought they had a pretty good understanding of the issue - a critical qualification for making decisions about it.





































