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

| 1 min read

Register for free to listen to this article
Listen with Speechify
0:00
1:00
Share
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 approving the bill by the US House of Representatives in January. That means the state of federal funding for stem cell research will remain the same as it's been since August 9, 2001, when Bush announced his restrictions on funding. Some are saying that the Hope Act, a second bill passed today 70-28 by the Senate, which encourages the use of 'naturally dead embryos,' will oil the gears a bit. Scientists, however, have said that's a misguided approach. It looks as though stem cell research supporters will have to muster their efforts for the 2008 presidential election.
Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

The Scientist Logo
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? Login Here

Meet the Author

  • Ivan Oransky

    This person does not yet have a bio.
Share
Image of a woman in a microbiology lab whose hair is caught on fire from a Bunsen burner.
April 1, 2025, Issue 1

Bunsen Burners and Bad Hair Days

Lab safety rules dictate that one must tie back long hair. Rosemarie Hansen learned the hard way when an open flame turned her locks into a lesson.

View this Issue
Characterizing Immune Memory to COVID-19 Vaccination

Characterizing Immune Memory to COVID-19 Vaccination

10X Genomics
Faster Fluid Measurements for Formulation Development

Meet Honeybun and Breeze Through Viscometry in Formulation Development

Unchained Labs
Conceptual image of biochemical laboratory sample preparation showing glassware and chemical formulas in the foreground and a scientist holding a pipette in the background.

Taking the Guesswork Out of Quality Control Standards

sartorius logo
An illustration of PFAS bubbles in front of a blue sky with clouds.

PFAS: The Forever Chemicals

sartorius logo

Products

Metrion Biosciences Logo

Metrion Biosciences launches NaV1.9 high-throughput screening assay to strengthen screening portfolio and advance research on new medicines for pain

Biotium Logo

Biotium Unveils New Assay Kit with Exceptional RNase Detection Sensitivity

Atelerix

Atelerix signs exclusive agreement with MineBio to establish distribution channel for non-cryogenic cell preservation solutions in China

Green Cooling

Thermo Scientific™ Centrifuges with GreenCool Technology

Thermo Fisher Logo