[Adam Zapple]

First Bush will use the veto and in this case he should. Even President Clinton did not authorized the funding of stem cells to the extent that Congress has authorized. But let's just make a few points clear.

#1. Bush is not against stem cell research and neither am I. Other forms of research, other than embryonic, have shown more promise without the ethical concerns. A couple of examples of these are adult stem cell and umbilical cord stem cell research which has resulted in 74 medical breakthroughs for diseases ranging from brain cancer to MS to lymphoma. Embryonic stem cell research has not provided any known benefit to date and in the process destroys a human embryo.

#2. Federal funding for existing lines of embryonic stem cells is available but funding does not allow new stem cell lines to be created or new embryos to be destroyed.

#3. The law coming out of Congress will allow the harvesting of embryos as I understand it. Research labs can actually create embryos for the purpose of using them for stem cells. In other words, create life just so they can destroy it.

Why the insistance on controversial research that has not shown as much promise as non-embryonic stem cell research? Have you noticed that so-called supporters of stem-cell research focus almost exclusively on embryonic stem cells? Notice they never mention the promise and success of adult stem cell research and umbilical stem cell research? What about the promise of bone marrow stem cells? These are stem cell lines available in abundance.

Stem cell research is still in infancy itself. Initial research focused on embryonic but it is not showing the results that adult and umbilical stem cells are. However to researchers and pharmaceuticals, the name of the game is funding and profit. Opening up stem cell research that could lead to human cloning for the purpose of research, along with federal funding, will mean almost unlimited dollars. What scientists would oppose that?