Should Bush veto stem cell bill?

The US House of Representatives has voted to increase federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

The vote is in opposition to the views of President Bush, who says he will veto the bill if it passes the Senate.

The bill aims to overturn Mr Bush's ban of 2001, in which he declared funding would only be available for research using existing stem cells.

Should more funding be given for embryonic stem cell research? Or should President Bush use his veto? Do you think this work is important for medical research or is it unethical?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

---

The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far:

Why not just use stem cells from the umbilical cord or placenta? Julie, Missouri, USA

Why is it such a big thing that we must use embryonic stem cells? There are multiple types of stem cells, why not just use them from the umbilical cord or placenta? Should they not then have the same effect? Recent mothers could donate their stem cells from their infants' umbilical cords and there would be no ethical issue over that! We do not have to resort to using embryos, and that would put an end to the major ethical debate before us.
Julie, Missouri, USA

I am not sure why President Bush should or should not veto the stem cell bill. However, one thing is for sure that Congress has enough votes to override the veto. President Bush has every right to use his constitutional authority by vetoing the bill, but in this specific case, the will of the American people, research of scientific community and the consent of Congress will prevail over the White House.
Bhawan, Iraq

How can anyone support the sanctity of human life on the one hand and gun ownership on the other?
Prashant, Toronto, Canada

In 2004, California voters voted to spend $6 billion on setting up a stem-cell research centre. In reality, the vote was a referendum on Bush's view that stem-cell research be impeded. (As an aside, the vast majority of voters did not realise that the state would be financially committed to the tune of $6 billion.)
Frank Hall, San Francisco, CA, USA

It's good to be cautious and careful with this, but we shouldn't let our ethical fears get the better of us Bill S, San Francisco, CA

As someone who has had a life-saving bone marrow transplant, you can probably guess that I am in 100% support of the research, and the potential it holds. Unfortunately, Mr Bush clearly has his own religious ideology and agenda, and will undoubtedly veto it. I just hope that good, responsible science and technology will prevail in creating new miracles that we've never thought possible. It's good to be cautious and careful with this, but we shouldn't let our ethical fears get the better of us. I say we should take this next step forward, with eyes wide open.
Bill S, San Francisco, CA

Why ask about the veto? The real question is, will Congress override that veto?
TJ Cassidy, Arlington, VA, USA

The research has two potential benefits: prolonging of lives and relief of sufferings. To ban this research because of the notion that "it is wrong to save life by destroying life" is immoral. What is more morally reprehensible - condemning people to unnecessary suffering and premature death or getting some stem cells for research from dead embryos?
William Kwan, Hong Kong

I have no problems with using stem cells. Stem cells are undifferentiated cells. Other than that, they are no different from any cell in your body. However, "embryonic" stem cells are taken from the death of an embryo. Let's not do this with tax dollars.
Kulani, Austin, TX USA

As president he should do what is in the best interest of all Americans Jonathan Damsgaard, Malmo, Sweden

Bush should not hinder the progress of science. His faith might not advocate this form of science but his personal view should not enable him to decide everything, as president he should do what is in the best interest of all Americans. Stem cell research can save more lives than Mr Bush realises.
Jonathan Damsgaard, Malmo, Sweden

It is easy for Bush to kiss babies and say he'll veto the bill when he is not sick himself and does not have sick loved ones or has seen someone he cares about die from a disease that stem cells could potentially cure.
Amy Collette, Washington, DC

While I firmly disagree with President Bush's position on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, the Christian right must not be smeared for exercising their rights as American citizens. If their position offends you, exercise your own right when voting next time for your senator or congressman if you are American. For the rest of you, this should not be any of your business!
Ife Ebenuwa, Urbana Illinois, USA

President Bush's stubborn opposition to stem cell research sounds like the same opposition all closed minded people have to new ideas and new approaches to the human condition. If Bush had been leader of the cavemen when they discovered fire, I'm sure he would have opposed that too and that the human race would not have evolved nearly as far as it has. Oops! I apologize. As a good American I should not say "evolved" as far as it has. I should say "intelligently designed" as far as it has.
Tom, Meadville, Pennsylvania, USA

Yes he should veto it. Not that it would make any difference to us in the third world. We are just curious bystanders watching the first world kill the earth. We will only get the diseases that will come out of all that experimenting. Then the west will go to town compiling percentages on just how badly the stem cell virus (SCV) has hit Africa. Zimbabwe will have the highest percentage affected in the world.
Mankaza, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe

The US is being left behind by Bush's refusal to accept this critically valuable area of biotech research. Meanwhile, stem cell research will develop at a rapid pace around the world as other countries seize upon the opportunities.
Hank Shymchuk, Toronto, Canada

The bill is to increase government funding into research not to stop the research itself. If there were such advantages to this research, as is claimed here, then there will be plenty of drug companies and entrepreneurs ready to invest in it and reap the rewards. If government funded research makes a breakthrough how will that be commercially licensed?
Andy, GA, USA (ex pat)

The US House should look at funding for research of adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. I am for saving life, not destruction of life. I appreciate President Bush's stand on this.
Connie Steindorf, Dallas, USA

If embryonic stem cell research were so promising, a huge wave of private research money would be flowing toward it, and there would be no need for federal funding. Bush is right not to waste taxpayer dollars.
Steve, Wall, NJ, USA

Keep religion out of this equation. Religion is a belief and is not a scientific fact. Religion has no place in politics nor science. Medical research is absolutely essential to improved health standards. If religious folk have any problems with medical research, then I would suggest that if they should suddenly become stricken by a serious illness, they should boycott all medical assistance associated with stem cell research and seek help from a priest.
Sandi Ashworth, Auckland New Zealand

I hardly think it is fair for them to benefit in the research done by other nations Paul Girling, Toronto, Canada

Go ahead and veto it. If Bush decides to do so, I hardly think it is fair for them to benefit in the research done by other nations. If you don't want the research, do not expect to heal your citizens with the results.
Paul Girling, Toronto, Canada

It is difficult to understand why this president would veto such amazingly important research whose results could relieve the suffering of millions of people. What planet is this President living on?
Sallie Gilmore, California, USA

The President is not saying no to the research - the President is saying no to government financed research. The private sector can begin or continue to fund and perform the research.
Sam, Ferndale, Michigan, USA

Interesting quandary for Bush. If he does veto the bill, scientists may seek to carry out their research abroad resulting in a brain drain. Secondly, the US would not be able to make money out of the research findings once the knowledge has been put into practical use and patented. So in effect we will see two of Mr Bush's main support groups pitted against each other, the business world and the religious right.
DW, Chicago, USA (Brit ex-pat)

No! Bush should not veto stem cell research. As a type I diabetic my future and millions of others are vulnerable. I'm also concerned of a scientist drain to foreign countries if stem cell research is limited. This country already has enough idiots!
Anthony Baldo, Wallkill, NY, USA

Vetoing stem cell research will only delay the inevitable progress of this technology. Governments are now faced with a problem. They are required to draft policy without knowing all of the facts. They are approached by individual private researchers, and are faced with conflicting data regarding stem cell research. If government funding is increased, there will not be this problem.
Aaron Hakim, Mississauga, Canada

If Bush veto's the bill, does that mean all the UK scientists who moved to the US will return? Lets hope so.
Stu, Birmingham, UK

There are a lot of conflicting reports as to whether or not this can benefit mankind. But without doing the research, we'll never know if we can eradicate some of the heinous diseases that plague the world. In the interest of science, I believe that it's time to do the research necessary to possibly help millions of afflicted people.
Paul, Philadelphia, PA

This bill would only fund research that uses embryonic stem cells from embryos created for IVF that would otherwise be thrown away. Wouldn't it be better to use these cells in a worthy cause rather than throwing them in the trash?
Kit, USA

The more time we spend debating the subject, the clearer the long term issues will become Aaron, Leicester, England

I think Bush is right to veto this. A complex decision such as this should not be rushed. The more time we spend debating the subject, the clearer the long term issues will become.
Aaron, Leicester, England

The major problem with leaders like Bush is that he and his supporters want the "public" to stay out of their religious affairs. However, they also want to inject their moral values into the public arena. They should not have it both ways. If they want to be involved in government then we should tax them like everything else! He has no right to say what my doctors can do for me to help me against illness!
Paul, Gainesville, FL, USA

Embryonic stem cell research is not banned in the USA, only taxpayer money is banned from being used in this research. If embryonic stem cell research has so much promise, why don't the large drug companies spend their money? Answer, the drug companies see the research as a waste of dollars. This issue is more political then any thing else.
Bud, Camas, USA

I'm much more concerned about the millions of people suffering from possibly curable diseases than a few cells in a dish. Bush's hypocritical "right to life" philosophy will definitely make the US lose its edge in the most important scientific and medical research of the next century. Why should we all suffer for his anti-science views? If he's against stem cell research and treatment, he doesn't have to use it if he becomes ill. I'd want myself and my loved ones to be treated and possibly cured one day.
Shawn, Washington, DC, USA

I feel in some ways that Mr Bush is correct and that humans should not play god. However, I do feel that it is far more important for humans to research into deadly diseases and possibly find cures for them. So I feel America, being a super power, should take a leading role in this research.
Chris, Ipswich, England

I definitely believe that the US should be exploiting all opportunities that embryonic stem cell research might present in addressing disease cures. President Bush is out of step with the sentiments of the country on this issue. The number of Republicans in both the Congress and House supporting this legislation is clear evidence of that.
Bob Whyte, CT, USA

Stem cell research will be able to aid with multiple health issues in the future Brian Quinn, Pittsburgh, USA

Although I am a Republican I will have to disagree with President Bush on this issue. I believe stem cell research will be able to aid with multiple health issues in the future. There should be some restrictions, such as the source from where the cells are received and cloning full human beings in the future.
Brian Quinn, Pittsburgh, USA

Nothing really surprises me anymore regarding the decisions of this current president. In an administration driven by an un-workable and selfish obsession with so-called Christian values, a veto on this issue is I fear inevitable. The fact that God has given us the intelligence and where with all to carry out such life saving research is selectively forgotten about. It is about time the gloves came off in this debate and Bush be exposed for all his hypocrisy.
Ed H, UK/currently US

If Mr Bush thinks he's doing the right thing in vetoing the bill, it is his prerogative, even though I have no qualms about using the human embryonic (in addition to adult) stem cells, and am even for the research. I don't agree with the crowd that claims we are on the verge of various medical breakthroughs, which will cure all kinds of ailments, and that with the veto, research will be set back decades. Scientific progress marches apace and said veto would be little more than an imperceptible bump along the way.
James, Alexandria, VA, USA

I think a lot of this depends on when you think a "human life" really begins. I do not regard a tiny grouping of cells to be a human life-form. It's something which certainly has the potential to become one, but there's a very big difference between the two. A stem cell cannot think or feel. This research has the potential to save billions of lives over the coming centuries, not to mention improve the quality of life for billions more who suffer from chronic illnesses such as diabetes or who are at high risk of contracting other illnesses such as cancer.
Elle, UK

Some of the rhetoric around this issue (although not yet on this site) is appalling! There are no embryos being deliberately created for use in stem cell research. These are spare embryos that come about normally as a by-product of IVF treatment that are going to be destroyed anyway. If these little bundles of inanimate, non-sentient cells can be used to help mankind, then what's the problem?
James Tandy, London, UK

This research is going to happen one way or another. Better it should occur out in the open and under the aegis of university and hospital research ethics boards.
John, Toronto, Canada

Yes, Bush should and will veto this cruel legislation. People are self-centred and selfish. Growing human embryos for harvesting is disgusting.
Sam, Ferndale, Michigan, USA

Yes, Bush should veto stem cell research and anything he does not like. He was given a political capital by the American people, so he should use it the way he feels fit. He has power, let him use it.
Christian K Paylay, Maryland, USA

The research is commendable but for the unwanted 'habit' of some pharmaceutical company to step in and claim patent on it. Such research should always be for the benefit of the humanity at large. If this is promised, many able countries would step forward to fund such research.
T R Gopalakrishnan, Mumbai, India

Nearly anything that the advisers to Bush are in favour of is something that I think I should be opposed to in principle. In this case, I am on the same side as Bush, but for the reason that I think there ought to be a lot more discussion of social implications before such research is carried out wholesale.
Charles Belair, Ottawa, Canada

This comes down to asking what the role of government is. I remember Kerry's response to this in the presidential debates - he said it is my job to represent all the people of my country not one group (i.e. conservative religious groups).
Anon, England

There are questions raised which should remain the preserve of the medical community and the legal system Jennifer Hynes, Plymouth, UK

Despite stem cell research being able to save lives, Bush has to go with his conscience. What bothers me is that religion is being used as a political weapon in the US. There are questions raised which should remain the preserve of the medical community and the legal system. Bush is using his religion as a political weapon. And in the process, it is possible he will retard scientific progress to the point where people will die, because of his personal beliefs, whether they share those beliefs or not. That is not democracy that is theocracy.
Jennifer Hynes, Plymouth, UK

As an American in London, the answer is no. Stem cell research is important for the advancement in preventing diseases and disorders. Bush has been an advocate of the death penalty and has no problem with putting people to death but may veto the opportunity to actually save lives in the future! In my view, he is a hypocrite.
Ken, London UK

Only the people living in the narrow minded world of denial think that the progress of science can be stopped. Funds - yes; Veto No.
Zoran Veljkovic, Las Vegas, NV. USA

Most of the medical breakthroughs have been made with cells NOT taken from embryonic stem cells but from those of adults. The making of an embryo to farm cells is the first step on the slippery slope toward creating humans for the sole purpose of farming them for body parts.
Marie, Philadelphia, USA

Absolutely more funding should be put up for this type of research, but it appears as though Bush will use his veto, and by doing so, set America behind other countries in medical advances. The notion that this type of research is unethical is completely ridiculous - stem cells are just that, cells, which are never brought to bear a human being, but rather thrown away if not used. Instead of being thrown away, they should be used to grow differentiated tissues which could replace dead or deceased tissues in living humans, and opposing this would be the amoral view of this issue.
Michael, Madison, WI, USA

The philosophy of eastern religion is that "Death is certain for those who are born and birth is certain for those who die". We believe in "Service to mankind is service to God". This philosophy is the reason why embryonic stem research is doing so well in the East without having to go through these moral issues. This fight between the conservatives and the progressives is going to go on forever. Fortunately, it is the progressives who always win. Veto or no veto, the research will go on (if not in America, somewhere else).
Kumar Manish, San Jose CA

I just don't think it is right that mankind should mess with nature and artificially prolong human life. The planet is already over-populated, we are sowing the seeds of our own extinction by this research Chris, Brazil

I agree with Bush, but not from the religious viewpoint that he is coming from. I just don't think it is right that mankind should mess with nature and artificially prolong human life. The planet is already over-populated, we are sowing the seeds of our own extinction by this research.
Chris, Brazil

Again the liberals misinform the public to make President Bush look bad. The President isn't stopping embryonic stem cell research, he just won't use federal money for it. Simple as that. The United States has a lot of research companies that are already involved in the research and making great discoveries.
Cheryl, PA - USA

The job of the president is to look after the needs of the American people, not his own personal religious interests. It is clear that the majority of Americans are in favour of this bill, yet the president puts their wishes aside and abuses the presidency again, to full fill his own selfish interests.
Adrianne Di Re, Washington, DC

It depends on whether embryos are human life. In my view they are. Bush would be right to veto. In any case there are other types of stem cell research which can be pursued. The possibility of future benefit accruing does not justify this particular branch of research.
Cameron, Edinburgh, Scotland

There are thousands of brilliant scientists outside the US who can conduct research without being restricted by a president with ethical dilemmas. Also, the embryos are not living human beings, but they could be used to help actual living human beings. If Bush has a problem with this, then he's taking his country backwards.
Jamie, London, UK

The belief that "an embryo is a human" is a religious belief, not a scientific fact. America needs a president who isn't so blinded by his own personal religious ideology that he values the "life" of a group of 16 cells over the life of a fully grown human being.
Regina , NYC

Stem cell research offers hope to cure dreaded disease for millions of existing lives through the use of surplus frozen embryos. I believe our medical future would greatly benefit from this research, and applaud the House for its insight. I hope the president listens, but he seems to follow his own agenda.
S. Michaels, Florida, USA

Cloning, stem cells technology, will become reality whether sanctioned by government or not, so there is no need to rush headlong into it without any cares Ed, Minnesota, USA

Stem cell technology, while harbouring amazing potential, brings with it its own set of unique risks and questions. Let us remember that even when we master stem cell technology, it won't make all the world's problems disappear. We need to be cautious. Cloning, stem cells technology, etc. will become reality whether sanctioned by government or not, so there is no need to rush headlong into it without any cares. We need to fully explore all the consequences, both positive and negative.
Ed, Minnesota, USA

Sadly, I think both sides of the argument are at fault. Those on the right reflexively say no to this research without admitting that millions of embryos from in vitro are destroyed every year. And the proponents of this have shamelessly boasted that stem cells could solve almost every disease imaginable without tempering that selling point by admitting they don't know if stem cells could cure anything. Sadly, just another example of competing ideas becoming so polarised that reasonable discussion becomes impossible.
John Kearns, Philadelphia, USA

Let's get one thing straight. No-one is trying to ban stem cell research in the US. What they are doing is banning the government-funding of such research. Here, much research is funded by the private sector. Why should the government which is supposed to represent all the people pay for something that many of us find morally reprehensible. I also have young children and worry about them getting some dreaded disease one day but there are far more promising results from adult stem cell and umbilical cord research.
Luke-John, Los Angeles CA

Bush is such a hypocrite when it comes to preserving life. What about the hundreds of young men and women he has sent to the killing fields of Iraq, so that he can get his hands on that country's oil. Why were Americans so foolish to re-elect this man? No one can honestly say that an embryo is life at such an early stage. When it reaches three months or more, yes, that is taking a life, but even then, if the mothers life is endangered, or that the child is deformed physically or mentally, I would support the termination of pregnancy.
C. Never, St Catharine's, Ontario

As a father-to-be I worry about the health of my unborn child. I hope that this type of funding and research is allowed to help put an end to the worry of illness and disease. This research is so valuable to the future of mankind that it cannot be banned purely on the grounds of faith and fuzzy morality.
Karl Lynch, Belfast, N Ireland

In this right-wing world of life, this president wants to refuse the rights to millions of people who could benefit from stem cell research. He would rather keep a women alive on a feeding tube, but he will not let science help others. He sounds like a hypocrite to me.
Brian, NC, USA

I'd be surprised if Bush doesn't use his veto, but it's a terrible mistake. The US is already losing ground academically and to be a late starter in what is going to be the most important area of research for the next 100 years is a form of economic and cultural suicide. If there are concerns about morality, than the US should be trying to lead the way in laying out an ethical framework in which this kind of research can take place.
Mike, London, UK

Let's not destroy a life in order to save one Patrick, USA

Since this is a US issue, let the representatives from the US government decided. There have been more benefits after decades of research with adult stem cells vs zero for embryonic. Let's not destroy a life in order to save one. I would ask both sides to do their research.
Patrick, USA

Although the embryonic stem cell research seems to benefit people in a variety of ways, I still think that it is playing God. Civilization improves our lives; however, it also brings us plenty of disasters, and if we still indulge ourselves in this sweet dream sooner or later we will finally have to swallow our bitter fruits.
Chiu, Taiwan

He should not veto the bill since it is good for mankind. If he did veto the bill, I do think that South Korea would be ahead of the US in stem cell research and that there would be a flow of eager scientists to South Korea rather than US.
Firdaus, Singapore

If God didn't want us to explore stem cell research he never would have given us the capabilities to do so. I think it's foolish and selfish to veto a bill that could improve or even potentially save the lives of people someday.
Anonymous