Why did president Bush restrict funding research of embryonic stem cells ?

He is a religious fundamentalist that is against abortion.

His base believes embryos are humans, and he must appease them. He decided it was OK to use stem cell lines that were already in existence, but did not want new stem cell lines created.

He’s religious and thinks life starts at conception. He has ostensibly ignored all the facts or hasn’t heard that there are more cells in a fly’s brain than in a blastocyst.

My non-politically-neutral assessment:
He represents people who feel uneasy about their pop culture notions of what stem cell research is, and who have never developed the habit of reading up on things they don’t quite understand before deciding they’re against it.
A similar fate has befallen nuclear energy.

Basically it was because of the implications for the abortion debate (which is what he and his supporters really cared about). If he conceded that all of those little frozen cell clusters were disposable, that would have undermined the whole basis for the anti-abortion argument. He saw it as a slippery-slope issue.

Because of ethical considerations regarding whether or not fertilizing eggs for the express purpose of killing them to harvest stem cells represents infanticide. It goes back to the age old argument over where life begins, at conception, birth, or somewhere in between. It’s a pretty darned hard question to answer, so many ethicist advocate exploring alternatives instead.

Frankly, I have no problem with embryonic stem cell research. However, in defense of the decision to restrict that line of research, I can’t help but wonder if without those restrictions the phenomenal research into other sources of stem cells (such as our skin) might not have taken place because all those talented researchers would be focusing on embryos instead.

I think he allowed funding for existing lines of stem cells already in use. But, would not give funding for any new stem cells acquired. It is religion, his religion, and catering to his supporters on the religious right. He also had a traumatic experience with his mom, where he saw her miscarried fetus, and drove her to the doctor. He, to this day, feels that was his sibling in the jar.

He cannot comprehend the science. So its bad. And Jesus tells us its bad somewhere in that big ole’ book… somewhere. Too much trouble to find where. But somewhere, he’s sure. And then the preacher said its bad, so there’s that too.

Nothing truly logical, just reliance on this overly emotional religious bullshit without any consideration for the facts of the matter. He buys into the bullshit without thinking (if he’s capable of it in the first place) because its easier than expending the effort and taking the time to actually think about facts.

I happen to be reading his book. He describes his reasons and process for his decisions on stem cell research. Congress had every year since 1995 passed legislation that banned federal funding for research that destroyed embryos. The National Institute of Health was prepared to start funding this research, but Clintons term ended before they gave out any money.
He did about seven months of research before he made his decision.His background research was articles from medical journals, writings on moral philosophy, and legal analyses. He then spoke to many people to get information. He met with the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation in July 2001. They supported funding research. The same day he met with the National Right to Life. They opposed any research that destroyed embryos. He met world respected surgeons and bio ethicists. He met with Pope John Paul.
He struggled with the decision. He saw the huge amount of hope and potential medical advances with stem cell research. He also saw a clear moral and ethical problem. If the government funded this research, it would be supporting the on purpose destruction of what he saw as sacred human life. He lost a sister to childhood leukemia and Mrs Reagan wrote him a personal note supporting stem cell research.
He decided to fund research into stem cell research into only existing cell lines. The embryos to create these lines had already been destroyed. It would be ethical to fund this research if he: 1. Stated that the moral principal(embryo destruction) had already been violated 2. Federal funding would not be used in the future destruction of embryos for research purposes. There were 60 lines that existed when he made his decision. He was the first president to fund stem cell research. He also allowed privately funded research to be conducted at facilities that received federal funding. He also made it clear that the federal government would not fund future research that destroyed embryo.

He announced his decision on August 9, 2001. He says in his book that they hadn’t commissioned a focus group or taken a poll, he just made a what he thought the right decision.
Sorry for the long answer. I just wanted to communicate that President Bush wasn’t stupid or an unreasonable religious zealot. The constant degradation of all Presidents by both sides irritates the hell out of me.

@alamo thank you for an interesting, intelligent, researched and excellent answer based on fact.

@alamo Thanks for elaborating. Your answer goes along with what I had remembered, but I didn’t have all of the details. I pretty much hated Bush as President, but I have always felt people were too harsh on him regarding this decision. He did not try to make the research illegal, which is probably what the uber religious would want. I think he made the best compromise he could live with. I don’t agree with it, for me it is still too driven by religion, but again, the criticism made it seem like he was 100% against the research, which is not wholly accurate.

So that if you want to perform Frankenstein-like experiments you will have to use private money, not money from the Feds.

ok I’ll bite

@gondwanalon Could you explain how stem cell research is like putting pieces of dead bodies together?

These are both freakish, unnatural, bizarre and which produce unknown and perhaps unwanted consequences.

All one is doing is getting a stem cell to differentiate into, say, heart tissue, or liver tissue, with the hope it could cure someone. Imagine if you were blind in one eye, and stem cells could be differentiated into a new eye for you. You’re against that sort of thing?

Did I say that I was against stem cell research? I’m OK with it. Just let someone else pay for it. More power to privately funded research.

I really don’t know why Bush didn’t want Federal money to pay for stem cell research. I was just trying to inject a little humor and sarcasm.

So that if you want to perform Frankenstein-like experiments

These are both freakish, unnatural, bizarre and which produce unknown and perhaps unwanted consequences.

Yes, those two statements led me to assume you were against stem cell research, my bad.

@ cockswain Well OK then. I’ll let you off easy this time.

@gondwanalon
There once was a time when steam engines were freakish, unnatural, bizarre and generally terrifyingly unknown. Have some perspective.

@Fyrius That is quite true. However, it is also important to note that the federal government did not foot the bill for steam engine development. That was left to entrepreneurs.

There seems to be an underlying mis-conception that Bush somehow outlawed embryonic stem cell research. This is simply untrue. All he did was say that the federal government would not provide funding for this particular branch of what is a very large field of study. Private bio-tech companies were/are quite free to continue embryonic stem cell research at their discretion and on their own nickle.

@Fyrius How’s this for perspective: Albert Einstein said “For an idea that does not at first seem insane there is no hope.” Scientists conduct experiments to determine the unknown. So the more freakish, unnatural and bizarre the better.

@gondwanalon I quite agree with those statements. I quite encourage private enterprise to turn freakish and insane ideas into practical beneficial reality.