ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

We may have been right on Senate stem cell vote

In December, following the November US midterm elections, Richard Gallagher, the editor of The Scientist, wrote a linkurl:hopeful editorial;http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/36654/ on the future of stem cell funding in the US. In it, he suggested that the Senate was just one vote shy of the 67-33 vote it would need to overturn a Presidential veto on the bill. He may have been right. Yesterday, the Senate voted 63-34 to approve the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. The three senator

Ivan Oransky
In December, following the November US midterm elections, Richard Gallagher, the editor of The Scientist, wrote a linkurl:hopeful editorial;http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/36654/ on the future of stem cell funding in the US. In it, he suggested that the Senate was just one vote shy of the 67-33 vote it would need to overturn a Presidential veto on the bill. He may have been right. Yesterday, the Senate voted 63-34 to approve the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. The three senators who didn't vote -- Connecticut's Chris Dodd, South Dakota's Tim Johnson (still recovering from a brain hemorrhage), and Louisiana's Mary Landrieu -- are all Democrats who voted for the bill last year. If all three voted for the bill again this year, Richard would be right. But that's not the important thing; the important thing is that President Bush has promised to veto this bill too, despite the Senate vote and a vote...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to more than 35 years of archives, as well as TS Digest, digital editions of The Scientist, feature stories, and much more!
Already a member?
ADVERTISEMENT