What the Senate Vote Meant
Date: April 16, 2007
Time: 4:32am est

Last Wednesday, the Senate voted on two stem cell bills (which have been discussed in my e-column here and here): S.5, a bill to expand federal funding for embryo destructive research, and S.30, the HOPE Act, a bill supporting ethical stem cell research that does not involve embryo destruction.

The Senate passed both bills, passing S.5 by 63 to 34 , and passing S.30 by 70 to 28.

Before the Senate even voted on S.5, the White House said the President would veto the bill because it "would compel all American taxpayers to pay for research that relies on the intentional destruction of human embryos for the derivation of stem cells," and "the Administration believes that government has a duty to use the people's money responsibly, both supporting important public purposes and respecting moral boundaries."

Due to the promised veto, S.5 was a dead-end bill. It would do nothing to advance the cause of stem cell research. Only S.30, which promoted ethical stem cell research, would receive a Presidential signature (if it passes through the House). This bill was written to enhance the most promising research, while safeguarding against the harm or destruction of human embryos.

Nonetheless, many Senators voted for S.5, but against S. 30. In fact, 28 Senators voted against S.30. This is remarkable because last July, the previous Senate approved unanimously-that's100-0-a very similar bill. So what's with these 28 Senators?

They seemed to follow the urging of embryo research advocates such as Harold Varmus, head of the Joint Steering Committee for Public Policy, and former Director of NIH. His blunt opposition to S.30 was expressed in a letter to the Senate:

We are also concerned about the provision in S.30 that requires a priority to be placed on research "with the greatest potential for near-term clinical benefit." Not only is it impossible to know the benefits of research in advance, but limiting the scope of research in this way places a muzzle on the scientific process, placing short-term incremental advances ahead of the more challenging goals of preventing or curing diseases such as diabetes.

Did you get that? He is "concerned" about a provision that would require priority funding for research that shows potential for the greatest near-term clinical benefit.

Go figure.

Advocates of embryo-destructive research are always dazzling the crowd with talk of cures that are "just around the corner" or "within our reach". Like Varmus, however, it seems they are so hyper-focused on the perceived need for embryo-destructive sources of such cures, that they even oppose provisions that place a priority on research "with the greatest potential for near-term benefits."

For them, and for the Senators who only supported S.5, but not S.30, one might conclude that progress is only progress if it entails the destruction of human life.

***