DeGette gains support of freshmen legislators, scientists
A press release from Colorado CD1 representative Diana DeGette states that today "Democratic Members of the 110th Congress' Freshmen class will join the lead sponsor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (H.R.3), Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO) to discuss their support for the bill. Many of these new Members campaigned on expanding stem cell research and have signed on as original cosponsors to the bill."
President George W. Bush used the only veto of his administration to dismiss DeGette's first attempt at the legislation.
Recently, some have tried to portray the work of Dr. Anthony Atala of Wake Forest University as a way to render embryonic stem cell research unnecessary. From CNN:
Stem cell researchers reacted with enthusiasm and reservations to a report that scientists have found stem cells in amniotic fluid, a discovery that would allow them to sidestep the controversy over destroying embryos for research. Researchers at Wake Forest University and Harvard University reported Sunday that the stem cells they drew from amniotic fluid donated by pregnant women hold much the same promise as embryonic stem cells.
But yesterday Atala blasted that assertion in a letter, which was provided to me by DeGette's office. Atala wrote:
"I understand that some may be interpreting my research as a substitute for the need to pursue other forms of regenerative medicine therapies, such as those involving embryonic stem cells. I disagree with that assertion... It is essential that National Institute of Health-funded researchers are able to fully pursue embryonic stem cell research as a complement to research into other forms of stem cells.
The right has a long history of twisting science to meet its own ends. (Remember The Competitive Enterprise Institute?) It appears that neither DeGette or the newly elected Congress is going to let partisan politics stand in the way of research that may save millions of lives.
President George W. Bush used the only veto of his administration to dismiss DeGette's first attempt at the legislation.
Recently, some have tried to portray the work of Dr. Anthony Atala of Wake Forest University as a way to render embryonic stem cell research unnecessary. From CNN:
Stem cell researchers reacted with enthusiasm and reservations to a report that scientists have found stem cells in amniotic fluid, a discovery that would allow them to sidestep the controversy over destroying embryos for research. Researchers at Wake Forest University and Harvard University reported Sunday that the stem cells they drew from amniotic fluid donated by pregnant women hold much the same promise as embryonic stem cells.
But yesterday Atala blasted that assertion in a letter, which was provided to me by DeGette's office. Atala wrote:
"I understand that some may be interpreting my research as a substitute for the need to pursue other forms of regenerative medicine therapies, such as those involving embryonic stem cells. I disagree with that assertion... It is essential that National Institute of Health-funded researchers are able to fully pursue embryonic stem cell research as a complement to research into other forms of stem cells.
The right has a long history of twisting science to meet its own ends. (Remember The Competitive Enterprise Institute?) It appears that neither DeGette or the newly elected Congress is going to let partisan politics stand in the way of research that may save millions of lives.
Labels: 2007 USA legislative session, CD1, Diana DeGette, George W. Bush, stem cell research
3 Comments:
Cross posted at Square State.
Great story on the scientist in question here.
Exactly right about the right twisting science to fit their own ends. I was reminded of this today at the 208 commission's proposal committee meeting, during which Linda Gorman proposed changing "evidence-based" medicine to "science-based."
They didn't go for that, but she did push through a change for healthcare reform proposals coming in that such proposals wouldn't need to cite published, peer-reviewed studies to show the efficacy of their model.
Proposers can also site experiential material.
Evidence that's not yet been published, she said.
In other words, anecdotes and crap from anti-reform organizations that wouldn't stand up to peer review.
Kind of like the Templeton Foundation for Intelligent Design or the Mobil/Exxon Happy Climate Institute rebutting global warming.
Post a Comment
<< Home