In July 2006, President George W. Bush used the first veto of his presidency to block a Congressional bill that would have lifted his 2001 ban on federal funding for most stem-cell research. In vetoing this legislation, Bush defied a bipartisan effort in Congress and the wishes of a majority of the American public. Nearly three-quarters of Americans support embryonic stem cell research, according to a May 2006 poll conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation.

History will look back and see the Bush veto as slowing and complicating national stem-cell research efforts, a set-back for the United States' position as a world leader in science and technology. Bush's action ensures that cell lines will remain few in number and funding scarce at U.S. research centers lacking private or state monies.

The history of medicine through the ages demonstrates that medical science that alleviates suffering and finds cures eventually triumphs, however heated the opposition. But nowhere is it written that the United States will always be in the forefront of such discoveries. And in slowing the pace of stem-cell research here, Bush's veto may have the unintended effect of “outsourcing” some of our most cutting-edge science, a move contrary to our national interests.

Science is now a global enterprise, and as we treat stem-cell research as a political football in the United States, other countries are moving ahead. For example, Singapore is aggressively promoting itself as a major hub for research in the field, and is luring away some of the best and brightest scientists from the United States. In Singapore, scientists are free to pursue stem-cell research in a gleaming new two-million-square-foot research center called “Biopolis” funded by the Singapore government.

Back in the United States, several states recognize the enormous fiscal and scientific returns possible in new biomedical industries and are already taking steps to become safe havens for stem-cell research. In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has pledged a $150 million state loan to a new state agency responsible for funding stem-cell research. But the agency has been hobbled by a constant stream of litigation from religious and tax-payer groups, and is struggling to establish itself. Other states—Maryland, Connecticut, Illinois, and New Jersey—have earmarked varying levels of state funds, some in the face of considerable opposition in the state legislature.

Though praiseworthy, this patchwork approach to funding embryonic stem-cell research is no substitute for a supportive federal policy. Federal support is still important and necessary. The potential of stem cells to help heal spinal cord injury, alleviate Parkinson's, and reverse heart disease is very real, but it will take many years of methodical research and trials before that potential is fully realized. This fact alone underlines the need for sustained federal support for research, not its derailment.

“Stem Cells and the Future of Regenerative Medicine,” a report from the prestigious National Academies, states that public funding of research on human stem cells derived from both adults and embryos provides the most efficient and responsible means to fulfill the promise of stem cells for achieving medical breakthroughs.

Ironically, the Bush veto may result in more, rather than less, attention paid to the issue of stem-cell research in this year's mid-term elections. In November, a third of the U.S. Senate seats, all 435 seats of the House of Representatives and several gubernatorial seats are up for election. Stem-cell research now joins the list of issues being hotly debated; the issue is already playing a role in races in California, Missouri and Wisconsin.

The Alliance for Aging Research has consistently supported stem-cell research for its potential to alleviate many of the diseases and chronic conditions associated with aging. The Alliance is an active member of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research (CAMR), a group of organizations advocating for the advancement of breakthrough research and technologies in regenerative medicine.

The debate over stem cell research is complex, and we encourage you to learn more about the science and the ethical issues under discussion. Below are some links to resources which can help you learn more:

• “Stems Cells: The Hope and the Hype,” (cover story), Time, August 7, 2006 -- recaps the debate and reports on the state of the science
• “Stem Cell Central,” Time, July 31, 2006, pp. 58-59 -- a feature on Biopolis, the Singapore research center
• Stem cell information from the National Institutes of Health
• International Society for Stem Cell Research