Setting the Record Straight: Stem Cell Research - Page 3 - Big Big Forums

Jolie Rouge · 01-09-2005, 02:02 AM

Non-human cloning
Robert Novak

WASHINGTON -- Since the Dec. 3 meeting of President Bush's Council on Bioethics, the struggle over embryonic stem cell research has been altered. Dr. Bill Hurlbut, a physician and Stanford biology professor, proposed a cloning-like procedure to harvest stem cells that would prevent even beginning the creation of a human organism or anything with human characteristics.

Hurlbut made the presentation to his colleagues on the council as a "third option" in the "current conflict over the procurement of embryonic stem cells." He suggested it as "a technological solution to our moral impasse." Robbie George, the eminent Catholic layman and Princeton law professor, supports this line of inquiry. Only one council member opposed Hurlbut's proposal.

The impact of this new development on anti-cloning legislation cannot be determined. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Senate sponsor of the bill to ban cloning, has not taken a position on Hurlbut's initiative while lauding use of adult stem cells for medical research. The Dec. 3 discussion at the President's Council only begins exploration of the moral considerations as the scientific inquiry proceeds.

Opponents of President Bush's ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research say they are against human cloning. But if stem cells prove the medical boon that proponents claim, they will need to be produced by something like cloning. That is why Senate liberals in the last Congress used the filibuster to stop the anti-cloning bill passed by an 86-vote margin in the House on Feb. 27, 2003. The 2004 elections produced an apparent net gain of five anti-cloning senators, still 10 short of the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster.

Prior to the Dec. 3 meeting of the President's Council, Hurlbut shopped his proposal around Capitol Hill with mixed reaction. Critics contended the process simultaneously creates and destroys human clones in collecting stem cells and thus fails on ethical grounds.

In his presentation to the council, Hurlbut asserted the controversy over embryo destruction for the purpose of fighting disease "is unlikely to be resolved through deliberation or debate." He added: "A purely political solution will leave our country bitterly divided, eroding the social support and sense of noble purpose that is essential for the public funding of biomedical science."

To resolve "this apparently irresolvable impasse," Hurlbut continued, "we believe there may be morally uncontroversial ways to obtain embryonic stem cells." He then said entities "that lack the qualities and characteristics of an organism appear to be capable of generating embryonic stem cells or their functional equivalent."

The only clear criticism on the council came from Dr. Paul McHugh, psychiatry department chairman at Johns Hopkins University. He warned that Hurlbut could be making a "hybrid which would be super-human in some kind of way." Hurlbut responded: "You create an entity that never rises to the evel of what can properly be called a living being." McHugh suggested Hurlbut was making "a doomed hybrid" that would not be permitted to become a human being. "Not doomed," responded Hurlbut, "Only doomed if it's alive first."

Hurlbut, a conservative himself, was supported at the meeting by conservative Catholic George's questions. He asked: "So you, yourself, would not want to see the proposal go forward unless it could be shown that in the human case, we would not be creating an embryo?"

"Yeah," Hurlbut replied, "that would violate the very principle we're trying to defend." They agreed animal experimentation would come first.

When I asked Sen. Brownback about Hurlbut's inquiry, he took a wait-and-see approach on grounds that nobody yet knows enough about it. Brownback then cited progress being made in using non-embryonic stem cells. He pointed to the recent report by Prof. Song Chang-hun of South Korea's Chosun University about a 37-year-old spinal cord patient, in a wheelchair for 19 years, standing up and walking with help of a walker 40 days after being treated with umbilical cord stem cells.

Bill Hurlbut, however, believes embryonic research is inevitable and does not see sufficient lines of stem cells available to make progress. Before his initiative can achieve its purpose of ending the impasse, substantial scientific progress is necessary. The larger task may be making ethical and moral decisions about non-human cloning.

Jolie Rouge · 02-11-2005, 12:45 AM

Mass. Governor Weighs in on Stem Cell Bill
By STEVE LeBLANC

BOSTON (AP) - Gov. Mitt Romney, who has voiced past support for stem cell research, told Massachusetts legislative leaders Thursday he believes some embryonic stem cell science ``crosses the boundary of ethics.''

Romney detailed his concerns for the first time publicly in a letter to the state Senate president, who introduced a bill this week to eliminate ambiguities in state law that discourage such research.

Romney said state law should prohibit the creation of human embryos for the purpose of research. Sen. Robert Travaglini's bill would not. ``Respect for human life is a fundamental element of a civilized society,'' Romney wrote. ``Lofty goals do not justify the creation of life for experimentation or destruction.''

The first-term Republican, whose wife has multiple sclerosis, has previously said that he supports stem cell research and would try to attract biotech companies to the state. He also expressed his concerns in an interview with The New York Times published Thursday. ``My wife has M.S., and we would love for there to be a cure for her disease and for the diseases of others,'' he told the newspaper. ``But there is an ethical boundary that should not be crossed.''

Ann Romney, who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998, has said she favors stem cell research if it is done ``morally and ethically.''

For supporters, embryonic stem cell research holds the promise of cures for debilitating diseases. Foes say the potential benefits aren't worth sacrificing human embryos.

Language dating to the 1970s in a law that prohibited fetal experimentation has left some confusion over the legal footing for researchers using embryonic stem cells, which generally are gathered from donated embryos created at fertility clinics.

State Sen. Cindy Creem, one of sponsors of the bill introduced Wednesday, said legal ambiguities have forced stem cell researchers at Harvard University to spend extra money to prove to prosecutors that their work was not illegal.

Romney told the Times that some research practices at Harvard and other institutions in Massachusetts probably go too far ethically. Romney said he would support research on stem cells taken from surplus embryos created as part of an in vitro fertilization process if they would be otherwise discarded and if there is no compensation and clear parental rights are established.

Travaglini's bill would ban human reproductive cloning and create an advisory committee to address ethical issues and establish safeguards for those donating stem cells. ``Our research community stands on the threshold of great advances in the fight against disabling childhood and degenerative diseases, but has been held back by cloudy legal policy on stem cell research,'' Travaglini said Wednesday. He did not immediately return a call for comment Thursday.

The Boston Democrat has previously said Massachusetts is in danger of losing biotechnology research to states like California, where voters last year approved a $3 billion bond to fund stem cell research over the next decade.

02/10/05 11:59

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...91.htm&sc=1501

Jolie Rouge · 02-16-2005, 01:12 AM

2/15/2005 10:04 PM

Stem cells' promise pits jobs vs. values
By Jim Hopkins, USA TODAY

SAN FRANCISCO — States have long worried about how far to go in attracting jobs, with the debate focused mainly on tax incentives and other corporate giveaways.

Now, as states gamble billions on controversial stem cell research to attract coveted biotech jobs, they're confronting an issue rare in job development: moral values.

The battle for supremacy over the emerging biotech industry will help define ambitious politicians, especially Republican governors Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, Jeb Bush of Florida, Rick Perry of Texas and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts.

Romney, with an eye on the White House, last week surprised the state's biotech industry, No. 2 in the nation, by saying he would not support expanding research that destroys human embryos. "Lofty goals do not justify the creation of life for experimentation and destruction," he said.

More fights pitting jobs against values are expected to spread. Biotech, while small, looms as a big source of growth. Started 30 years ago, the U.S. industry has just 200,000 workers at 1,500 mostly money-losing companies. But advances in stem cell research since 1998 spur hopes biotech is closer to cures for cancer, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries and other maladies. That could transform the sector into a profit dynamo, a big reason biotech executives and financiers push stem cell research so hard. Opponents push back just as hard, equating stem cell research with abortion and injecting moral values into what would otherwise be a business debate.

In the past five years, most states have put biotech near the top of economic-development lists. That means governors and lawmakers ideologically opposed to embryonic stem cell research face a dilemma: They can support research to boost biotech — and risk alienating voters — or oppose it and risk losing biotech jobs and investors. "It really pushes that choice hard between ethics or economics," says David Schultz, a management professor at Hamline University in St. Paul.

Indeed, the jobs-vs.-values clash seems most pitched in Florida. Bush faces a dicey choice between biotech, which he's courting aggressively, and loyalty to President Bush, who is leading conservatives against stem cell research that destroys human embryos. "Will Bush follow his brother and pander to the right?" asks Scott Maddox, head of the Florida Democratic Party. "Floridians believe we should give science a chance."

Gov. Bush is not talking. His office did not return six USA TODAY requests for comment during the past three weeks.

California bets $3 billion

The stem cell research race has mushroomed during the past three months, after California voters agreed to borrow $3 billion over 10 years for embryonic stem cell work. The money is to lure scientists studying cures that could create biotech start-ups. California already commands 29% of U.S. biotech companies, including powerhouses Amgen and Genentech. And it got more than a third of private investments last year in biotech start-ups.

Meanwhile, foreign nations with less-restrictive policies for government research are racing ahead. British authorities last week gave the scientist who cloned Dolly the sheep a license to clone human embryos for research. South Korea last year became the first to clone a human embryo for stem cells.

Fearing they'll be steamrolled by California and foreign competitors, lawmakers are scrambling to protect fledgling biotechs in:

•Massachusetts. Romney's remarks came as a Senate bill was introduced clarifying the legality of embryonic stem cell research. Romney supports the bill. And he supports research on human embryos created in fertility clinics that would otherwise be discarded. But he says he wants to outlaw the creation of human embryos solely for research.

•Maryland. State Sen. Paula Hollinger, a Democrat from Baltimore County, last week filed a bill seeking $25 million in annual spending on stem cell research.

•Washington. Newly elected Gov. Christine Gregoire, a Democrat, last month proposed $1 billion in state and other funds during 10 years for biotech research, including stem cell study.

•Texas. U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, breaking with social conservatives, asked Gov. Perry to end his ban on stem cell funding so Texas won't get "left in the dust by California." Both are Republicans.

Lawmakers in more than a dozen other cash-strapped states are expected to introduce bills this year supporting stem cell research, the Biotechnology Industry Organization says. "That's an unprecedented escalation over previous years," says Patrick Kelly, a vice president at the trade group.

Ethicists: Going too far?

In California, venture-capital executives investing in start-ups were big boosters of November's $3 billion bond. It will pump $300 million annually into research at public and private labs. That is 12 times what the federal government spends under restrictions imposed by President Bush in 2001.

There is no guarantee that stem cell research will produce promised breakthroughs or jobs. Supporters concede there have been none so far. They say the work is just getting off the ground now that states are spending more. But the research is certain to provoke more controversy. That is because human embryonic stem cells often come from eggs fertilized in labs. Cells are removed from embryos between 3 and 8 days old. That destroys the embryo and, opponents say, snuffs out human life.

To be sure, the USA has faced moral and religious opposition to growth industries before, from the 19th century rise of railroads to the more recent spread of casino gambling. But business ethicists say the climate now is more charged than ever because Americans are wary of business after decades of scandal. Chemical makers in the 1970s profited while polluting communities such as Love Canal in Niagara Falls, N.Y. Corporate raiders in the 1980s got rich firing thousands of workers. Shady accounting in the 1990s cost investors billions.

Now comes stem cell research and the specter of Frankenstein-like human cloning, says David Sicilia, an associate professor of business and tech history at the University of Maryland.

The biotech industry rejects human cloning. But Sicilia says the public still fears stem cell research "will somehow spiral out of control — that humans, by coming up with a great technological breakthrough, may have overreached."

Further complicating stem cell research: Voters are now more focused on abortion and other moral values, the top issue in November election exit polls.

Yet voters' No. 2 issue was the economy and jobs. That highlights the jobs-vs.-values dilemma in conservative "red" states and liberal "blue" states, says Schultz, the Hamline professor.

States favoring stem cell research tend to be blue states already strong in biotech, such as California and Massachusetts. In Boston, lawmakers are expected to seek state funding for research this year, the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council trade group says.

States moving more cautiously — or in the opposite direction — are red states such as Georgia and Missouri, which have fewer biotechs. Missouri state Sen. Matt Bartle, a Republican, last month introduced a bill banning one popular form of embryonic stem cell research.

Missouri is among more than a dozen states expected to debate bills this year limiting or banning stem cell research, the Biotechnology Industry Organization says.

In Florida, Gov. Bush is big on biotech. He persuaded lawmakers in 2003 to spend $310 million for a Scripps Research Institute near Palm Beach. Bush, trying to diversify the tourism-dependent economy, hopes research into disease will spur biotech start-up jobs. That happened in San Diego, where Scripps is based. The Palm Beach center could create more than 3,000 jobs in the next 15 years, state officials say.

But Bush apparently is drawing the line at embryonic stem cell research. The BioFlorida trade group says there's no effort underway at the state capitol to support it. Scripps says it's not pursuing the work. And Bush's office isn't talking.

There are risks for states that don't ante up. "Will it be the blue states that have the biotech, and the red states that don't?" Schultz asks. "That could set up a situation where the blue states are poised for future economic growth ... leaving the red areas behind."

That may have already happened. Industry experts say biotech won't create many jobs beyond states that already have big biotech clusters. "This is not a big job spinner," says Joe Cortright, who has studied biotech economic development at consultant Impresa in Portland, Ore.

For now, politicians such as Sen. Hutchison of Texas forge ahead. Her support for more embryonic stem cell research distances her from President Bush.

In his State of the Union speech, the president reiterated his policy limiting federal research funding to embryonic stem cell "lines" that existed when he first announced his position in August 2001.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...M_Exclude=Juno

Jolie Rouge · 02-16-2005, 01:14 AM

(( the rest of the article .... ))

'Business wins'

Hutchison is a possible Perry rival in next year's Republican gubernatorial primary. If she runs, Perry likely will attack her stem cell support "because he's going to have to polarize that primary as a conservative vs. a liberal," says Stuart Rothenberg of the non-partisan Rothenberg Political Report.

Perry proposes $300 million for biotech and other emerging industries. But he opposes embryonic stem cell research. At an anti-abortion rally last month in Austin, he reaffirmed opposition to "any taxpayer dollars being used and spent on research that ends a human life."

Perry believes research on stem cells from adults and from umbilical cords — which doesn't destroy embryos — is equally promising. "Those are certainly the areas he wants to focus on," says Robert Black, a Perry spokesman.

Whether that will satisfy the biotech industry and its powerful venture-capital investors is unclear. History may be a guide. The railroads got their way, spreading across the USA. Gambling now flourishes everywhere.

In the end, Sicilia says, "Business wins."

http://www.usatoday.com/money/indus...RM_Exclude=Juno

Jolie Rouge · 03-30-2005, 11:53 PM

Massachusetts Senate OKs Stem Cell Bill
By STEVE LeBLANC

BOSTON (AP) - Despite a veto threat from the governor, the state Senate overwhelmingly approved a bill Wednesday to give scientists more freedom to conduct embryonic stem cell research in Massachusetts.

The 35-2 vote came after less than two hours of debate, on the same day Gov. Mitt Romney launched a statewide radio campaign to urge the bill's defeat.

Senate passage was widely expected; the Senate approved similar legislation in past years, only to see it stall in the House.

House Democratic leaders said they believe they have the votes this time to approve the bill, but are unsure if they have the two-thirds majority needed to override a certain veto.

The measure would allow scientists to create cloned embryos and extract their stem cells for research into the treatment and cure of diabetes, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries and other conditions. Removing the stem cells destroys the embryos.

Under state law, scientists interested in conducting stem cell research first need the approval of the local district attorney. The bill would remove that requirement, give the state Health Department some regulatory controls and ban cloning for reproductive purposes. Reproductive cloning is already banned under federal law. ``Cloning would mean creating new human life, new embryos, just for experimentation,'' Romney said in the 60-second radio ad paid for by his political committee. ``If, like me, you support stem cell research but you oppose cloning human embryos, please tell your legislator. Help me oppose the radical cloning bill now on Beacon Hill.''

Romney's opposition to the bill puts him at odds with some of the top university and research facilities in Massachusetts, including the newly formed Harvard Stem Cell Institute, created specifically to study the possibilities of stem cells. ``That Gov. Romney would actually lock up those scientists whose life's work is to cure diabetes or Parkinson's disease is amazing,'' said Sen. Cynthia Creem, a Democrat.

Romney and some opponents of embryonic stem cell research say they support research using adult stem cells or leftover frozen embryos from fertility clinics, but oppose the creation of new embryos.

Embryonic stem cells are derived from human embryos that are typically no more than a few days old. Some researchers see almost unlimited potential in those cells, which go on to develop into every kind of cell in the body, including liver cells and muscle.

With approval in the Senate, all eyes were on the House. The departure of former House Speaker Thomas Finneran, an opponent of stem cell research, had supporters optimistic about getting the measure through that chamber.

03/30/05 15:51

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...27.htm&sc=1501

Jolie Rouge · 04-25-2005, 11:47 AM

additional information .....

llbriteyes · 04-25-2005, 12:11 PM

I would like to add to this post...

The reason the lines were there in the first place was because of Clinton.

George bush said NO EMBRYONIC stem cells will be used. Period.

I want to speak to the 20 "viable" lines. Most of them have been corrupted in some way and are not completely usable. It is also important to know that it isn't necessary for women to have abortions to obtain these vital stem cells. Scientists are now able to clone these stem cells.

Please go to: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/miracle/stemcells.html in order to learn more about it.

Linda

Quote:

Originally Posted by kvmj

At the time Bush made his announcement about stem cell research, there were 70 some lines being studied. He decided that no new lines could be added. Of the original lines, only 20 some are viable.

Stem cell research shows great potential for many diseases including Parkinson's and cancer.

His objections are religious in nature and not based on scientific fact.

llbriteyes · 04-25-2005, 12:15 PM

Jill, I'm so sorry to hear about your situation. I'm thrilled your stepfather got the liver, and like you, I'm so sorry about the young man who died to give it.

As to the rest of your post, I couldn't agree more. In an earlier post, I added where to go to get real scientific information about stem cells. For all who think it has to do with abortion, you're wrong.

Linda

Quote:

Originally Posted by JillPole

The reason only 20 are available (if that, even now), is due to political pressure from the right-wing conservatives. They decided to drag abortion rights into this, saying the majority of stem cells would come from aborted fetuses.

Result? Bush ran scared, backed off, bowed down to any type of scientific idea that would DARE bring up Roe v. Wade, never mind that these are NOT stem cells from aborted fetuses!!!

I'm sorry... I just want to puke. My stepfather just received a new liver today because a 23 yr. old male died. I have been posting to keep myself from crying my eyes out. Not just for my stepfather to pull through, but for the family of the person who died. One of my brothers is 23.

It is a tough position to be put in... to think that someone you love is alive because someone died. It is killing me right now.

But that is NOT what stem cell research is about!!!

If the posts look like articles from another source, then STOP! Ask yourselves where the article is from and who originally wrote it. If you question something, go beyond BBS and dig for more info. Make up your own minds!!!

llbriteyes · 04-25-2005, 12:20 PM

Actually, Jolie, cord cells are not the same. Embryonic stem cells come from an egg that has been fertilized and allowed to age up to 7 days. Adult stem cells are different as well.

The debate only concerns stem cells because of the erroneous belief of the Religious Right who believes you have to abort fetuses to get them.

Linda

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge

ITA

Anyone care to discuss why all this debate only concerns embryonic stem cell research ??

Stem cells can also be "harvested" from the cord blood after child birth, no ethical or moral crisis involved ...

llbriteyes · 04-25-2005, 12:23 PM

Do you realize that you're posting stuff from years ago?

Stem cell research has grown by leaps and bounds since then.

Linda

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge

One of the flogged-to-death Democratic campaign horses is stem cell research--a topic that, according to the latest Zogby poll, could endear swing voters enough to support Kerry's cause. If Kerry were to announce a major initiative in stem cell research to cure diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes and spinal injuries, states an article in American Demographics, he would gain 11% of Bush voters. Another 9% of Bush voters would switch to a third party, not vote, or be undecided.

Bob Beckel, former political strategist for the Dems, calls stem cell research the "'sleeper issue' of this campaign." Correspondingly, Kerry doesn't miss an opportunity to bring it up. MSN's Slate magazine reported that stem cells "were mentioned 20 times at the Democratic National Convention, more than unemployment and abortion combined."

"Three years ago, the President enacted a far-reaching ban on stem cell research," said Kerry in a radio address on August 7, promising twice that, if elected U.S. President, he'd "lift the ban."

Problem is, there is no such ban.

All George W. Bush did was restrict federal funding to research on embryos created before August 2001; but he didn't ban stem-cell research itself. In fact, Bush is the first president ever to give federal funds to embryonic stem cell research. Plus, the private sector, state and local governments are still free to pursue this potentially ground-breaking science as they wish.

Another half-truth the Democrats fervently promote is that stem cell research is a sure-fire way to help cure Alzheimer's Disease. So far, that hasn't been scientifically proven. A June article in the Washington Post stated that, "of all the diseases that may someday be cured by embryonic stem cell treatments, Alzheimer's is among the least likely to benefit." Even though scientists agree that stem cell research will be somewhat beneficial to understanding Alzheimer's better, a "cure" is by no means waiting on the sidelines.

But the "big A" is another catchword that could draw voters on Kerry's side. A poll by "Results for America", a group that endorses stem cell research, showed that only 17% of Americans have--or come in contact with through family, friends, etc.--the diseases that are most susceptible to stem cell therapy. With Alzheimer's in the mix, that number shoots up to 28%. And 72% of voters say they would support stem cell research if experts thought it would cure Alzheimer's.

"People need a fairy tale," Ronald McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, told the Washington Post. "Maybe that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand." And for all those people, John Kerry makes it easy to believe.

Gilding the lily on stem cell research isn't the only example of Democratic dirty tricks. For example. one of the battlegrounds between the GOP and Democrats is offbeat candidate Ralph Nader, the man that only a small, but potentially pivotal, block of voters take seriously. While Republicans busily gathered signatures for Nader to get on the ballots, hoping to take away votes from Kerry, the left allegedly kept busy, too.

According to the website www.votenader.org, the law firm Smith, Diamond, and Olney that works for the Democrats "threatened circulators of Nader petitions [in Oregon] saying they were investigating 'whether fraudulent signature-gathering techniques were used... saying their involvement 'may result in a conviction of a felony with a fine of up to $100,000 or prison for up to five years.'"

The pro-Nader team also complained that Democrats were sabotaging one of his recent nominating conventions, "swelling the number of attendees and then refusing to sign ballot petitions." Since the doors were closed by the government after over 1,000 attendees had been let in, the "intruders" prevented others from entering and Nader wound up with less than the 1,000 signatures he needed.

So much for moral superiority.

The bottom line, as we see it: there is a reason that there are only two major political parties... both know the game inside out, and will do whatever it takes to gain control, and keep it. Politics is not a game for the weak of heart.

llbriteyes · 04-25-2005, 12:28 PM

The facts are:

*Bush delivered the first funding ever for embryonic stem cell research. A pretty new science at that point. The cells he approved funding for were there thanks to Clinton.

*Bush DID ban did restrict research. He bowed down to the Religious Right and put a limit on the already existing lines from the Clinton Administration.

*It is accurate to say that Bush limited not only the monetary resources for this science, but the actual stem cells themselves.

*Bush approved what he did, with none being approved before, because it is a NEW SCIENCE.

John Kerry was right.

Linda

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge

Embryonic Stem Cell Misinformation

John Kerry has made a repeated effort to mislead the press and the public on the reality of the new federal funding for stem cell research that the President announced in August 2001. Both Kerry and Edwards have repeatedly referred to the President's policy as a "ban" on stem cell research.

Numerous media outlets have adopted their language, referring to the President's new funding as a ban, or saying that the President took steps to limit federal funding without mentioning that the President announced the first ever federal funding of stem cell research. These characterizations are inaccurate or incomplete, and misinform the public on the reality of the policy.

The Facts Are:

** President Bush delivered the first funding ever for embryonic stem cell research. Prior to the President's announcement of new funding, federal funding of embryonic stem cell research was $0.

** The President's announcement did not ban, limit or restrict stem cell research.

** It is inaccurate to say the President "limited federal funding" of stem cell research, as such funding did not exist to limit. This language misleads voters to believe that the President put restrictions on existing federal funding.

** The President did announce the first ever federal funding of stem cell research with ethical requirements on which stem cell lines are funded.
The new federal funding that the President announced did not include funds to research stem cell lines from embryos that had not already been destroyed.

John Kerry's Effort To Mislead On Stem Cell Research:

Kerry: "Three Years Ago, The President Enacted A Far-Reaching Ban On Stem Cell Research." KERRY: "Three years ago, the President enacted a far-reaching ban on stem cell research, shutting down some of the most promising work to prevent, treat and cure Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, AIDS and so many other life-threatening diseases." (Sen. John Kerry, Democratic Response To The President's Weekly Radio Address, 8/7/04)