For the first time in his presidency, President George W Bush made a historic veto last July 19th killing the hopes of further development in the stem cell technology. The terminated bill was aimed at lifting the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research which President Bush himself imposed in 2001.



The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act was unanimously voted by both the Senate and the House of Representatives, but both chambers fell short of the needed two thirds vote that would have overturned Bush's veto power. With an argument on grounds of social morals, the veto from the president was somehow already been expected. Bush has always been vocal in his stand against embryonic stem cell research and the technology that uses human embryos in trying to develop miracle cures for terminal diseases.

With the veto, President Bush gained a wider support ground among the conservative Republicans and the many progressive religious and conservative advocacy groups. Disappointment and frustrations, on the other hand, escalated among the seculars and liberals.

The issue has been residing in the highest offices of the country but many common Americans are still unaware on what is the real deal about stem cell. The only message the government and other concerned parties are sending to the social base is the potential of stem cell to cure terminal diseases. Not enough understanding on how stem cell can achieve this potential and its political, social, and religious underpinnings is being made available to the large public which at the end of the day is at the receiving end of any legislation.

In a very lengthy conversation I had with a cousin who teaches Biology, I came to understand that stem cells are cells of the body that are at their very early stage of development and are not yet designed to perform very specific functions. Unlike brain cells that cannot replace the functions of the heart cells, stem cells can be developed and assigned to do whatever function. This characteristic is apparently what is seen by experts to be million-years missing link to solving serious body and organ malfunctions.

Scientists and researchers say that by focusing on the yet unspecialized nature of stem cells, specifying mechanisms can be done to turn these stem cells into a particular kind of cell to be used to replace damaged tissues of an organ. This premise promises stem cells to function as repair kits especially to diseases that are currently hard to solve like heart diseases, diabetes, spinal chord damages, Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. On a scholastic note, stem cell technology advocates argue that by exploring the many possibilities of stem cells, humanity will achieve a greater understanding on how diseases develop in the cell and tissue level.

It sounds perfectly fine and enormously beneficial, so what's the fuss all about? As I was (objectively I hope) told, the controversy is rooted from the fact that the most viable stem cells are from the tissues of an embryo. Applied in human context, it is the human embryo-- the beginning of life, something we humans cannot alter or infringe on (as social and moral constructs taught us).

And when morals and ethics are in the picture, politics cannot be missing. Given the numerous analyses, view points, and opposition coming from organized religions and groups, governments of countries where stem cell research are existing are placed in an extremely stressful tipping point. With pragmatic, revolutionary promises colliding with instituted social beliefs and moral convictions, governments are at the mercy of mutually exclusive polars. A solid support base is what keeps a government alive (and a president popular). If majority of the people are secular, hurting their beliefs won't do a government any good. But what about the national interest in advancement and progress? And so the debate ensues.

Far more issues arise from stem cell. Should further researches be pursued and developed into technologies? Should currently accepted stem cell procedures be widened? Should we be contented with adult stem cells or bank more on embryos? Should stem cell research and technology be funded by the state? Where do we draw the line between morals and practicality?

To constructively engage in the issue, I argue in favor of the stem cell advocates. The religious opposition some sectors have is not something new to be so alarmed about. They had the same stance about divorce, about euthanasia, and even about war. Yes, their opposition is a necessary element given that we are (ideally) in democratic society where multi perspective political stands are celebrated. However, their opposition should not in any way be the turning point of the fate of any attempt to advance human knowledge, especially if they (the anti-stem cell groups) or their loved ones can benefit from it. Issues like the fraud and embezzlement of South Korea's Hwang Woo-suk are valid and worth the scrutiny it deserves. But essentially, the incident is not in any way indicative of the follies of stem cell technology.

No technology cannot alter life. All the technologies we have accepted and been using have altered our lives in greater deals that we can recognize. Dealing the issue of stem cell with objectivity may just weed out the hindrances there are in arriving at a sound and equitable deal with the benefits of stem cell.