Slashdot Mirror
Stem Cell Research Moves Forward In The US
maniacdavid writes "President George Bush has finally made a clear and final decision on stem cell research. He will allow the existing 60 cell lines to continue their development in the hopes of curing a disease. He said the choice was difficult because of his stand on against stem cell funding during his campaign. But he allowed the 60 to continue because the choice between life and death was already made. This is good for both sides and many people are pleased. " Granted, there's the issue of these 60 lines viability, but at least it's not a total federal funding ban, as was widely expected. As well, there's increased funding on stem cells obtained from adults, umbilical cords, placentas and animals - 250$US million this year, which is still a pittance when you consider the potentials of stem cells.
There's a difference between asserting a material position and being a materialist.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
Thank you for completely not reading the post.
You did a most definitely excelent job of dodging the issue.
Now, I repose it.
We don't care if human cells or even globs of human cells die. We don't care if unique organisms/dna combinations die. Why do you suddenly combine them together to equal "I care enough to force my beliefs on others?"
And, once again, I'll state, the thing that makes killing a human a tragedy is the destruction of a complex, unique consciousness. Of which there is none in an early fetus, unless you believe the "soul" is the source of consciousness - but then, that would be forcing religion on others.
-= rei =-
*Kid Rock runs for Senate* Democrats: We must run Kid Scissors.
I don't believe that anyone has "banned" use of cells. Just the federal funding of it. But then again, who's to say that it won't happen in a few weeks/months/years?
And just because lots of people don't believe something doesn't make it not true. Regardless of what you or I believe, truth is truth.
As to your supposed lack of evidence, there's plenty. For example, note that the Universe exhibits intelligent design. Explain how you can get complex life and thought from time + chance. The law of entropy states otherwise. If the law of entropy holds true, order cannot come from disorder. And therefore, everything is random. Including your thoughts. Which completely invalidates any and all argument you may make, because they are naught but random noise. Before you go citing a logic FAQ, consider that a prerequisite to logic is the ability to reason.
Explain how random process managed to create life thousands, if not millions of times over. The scientific fact is that mutations are simply almost never beneficial. The harmful mutations would have eliminated the species before the helpful ones took over. Yes, I know about the moths. Adapting a characteristic is hardly the same as inter-species evolution. Last time I checked, they were still moths.
Explain how scientests have never been able to create life in a laboratory, even with our intricate knowledge of biological systems.
Explain why the earth isn't stuffed full of trans-species fossils. If you've got millions of years of animals evolving, unless you have animals with the lifespan of several hundred millinnea, they're going to be dying and leaving traces. Given that amount of time, such fossils should be everywhere. But they're not.
Explain sexual reproduction. It's irreducibly complex and logically unnecessary. Why do we have it then? Just for pr0n?
Explain humanity. We think, we reason, we talk, we invent. No other animal exhibits these characteristics. Mentally, we're the highest life form on the face of the planet. Why not physically then? Does evolution decide to enhance one characteristic and not another? Remember, it's random. Go roll a die 400 times and tell me with a straight face that you're going to get a certain non-uniform distribution of numbers.
It points to a higher intelligence. But of course, that can't be possible because it means that you might actually have to adopt a little humility and acknowledge that there is a power higher than yourself.
So much easier to just not believe it, huh? Gets rid of a lot of those ugly responsibilities and moral obligations.
Just food for thought.
Singer is another great modern philosopher to read about the objectivity of ethics (we read his book "Practical Ethics" in Philosophy and Social Ethics).
Heh. Me too.
And this is right about where I stopped taking you seriously. Have a nice day.
It seems that the Democrats really want this to happen. I suppose that if I were them, I'd just sit back for the next three years while scientists work on the sixty cell lines that are available. Then, if they are able to get their own person in there in 2004, they will just re-open the issue and allow the use of the 100,000 other frozen embryos available. Perhaps they are already, but if the Republicans in general are opposed to destroying new embryos because they have the "potential for life," then why aren't they calling for the unfreezing and implanting of those embryos to allow them to continue on their way? Not to mention a ban on creating more embryos?
...nothing is ever really clear or truly final.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
They don't last forever. No currently known cell lines do. What GW did was say NO while getting the PR for yes.
I dont have a
What, do you think, defines a "human life"? It is our conciousness and self-awareness that seperates us from (most of) the animals, and these are only -potential- attributes until the construction of the central nervous system, and the infusion of DMT into the brain.
And don't say that it can't happen, because if you can remember that far back, Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote in 1992.
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
IMO, when the brain has developed to the point of self-awareness--before that, it's just mammal flesh & bone with human potential.
4-5 cells isn't enough for a functioning brain; you need ~100 billion (though the more squeamish might say it begins as soon as they can empathize with a fetus' reflexive pain receptors).
By the same logic, brain-dead vegetables in the hospital aren't really living either; they're merely existing at a low level (usually for the emotional benefit of selfish relatives.)
It's our unique brain that makes us human--not magic.
Power to the Peaceful
OK...people like Chris Reeves, Nacy Reagan (Ronald Reagan is one of my heros), and Michael J. Fox all appear to be very selfish on this issue. They seem to have no problem destroying embryos that have the potential to become a perfectly normal person in exhange for maybe walking again, remembering the name of ones kids or sitting still. OK, so Ronald Reagan may have been involved with us more had treatments been avaiable to him but I don't know if he would trade some unborn babies for a few more years of normalcy to his life. Research will still go on with private funds and other contries with leaders that have no morals (eg: the French and Italians) will kill and clone many babies in an effort that's only "promising". Like the president said embryonic tissue research proved to be a folp and so for stem call treatments have cured some symptoms but caused others that were much worse. Hopefully the extra study on existing stem cell lines will give scientists a better idea of what works before Liberals like Tom Daschle get their way and have us manufacture babies for harvest.
I invoke Godwin's Law.
His point was valid and on topic, and did not in any way compare anyone to the nazies. Perhaps you should actually READ and UNDERSTAND godwin's law before you start invoking incorrectly.
Finkployd
You are a troll.
"Most stem cell researchers were surprised that President Bush "
What kind of science is that when one can talk about "most researchers" ?
We talking here about believes and NOT widely accepted scientific facts.
Sadly, the US are allowing themselves to be dictated to by a group of religious extremists. As pointed out by another poster, the US will get left behind. For example, Britain has a more liberal approach. In time, no doubt, the US will come to some form of compromise where they will use other countries' research even if they did not do the research themeselves. At least, at that time, it will be clearer what they would have gained by allowing stem-cell research.
And let's not forget the question of lines of stem cells created in other countries. If those were made available, why not put those in the registry as well?
I think foreign stem cells can be put in the registry.
From the article:
Based on those conversations, Thompson and NIH are confident stem cell lines owned by private researchers in the United States and around the world will be made available to the U.S. government.
But if the issue comes up again for a new set of lines, he won't be able to say no to them without going back on what has been said.
Good point. Though, I think Bush is basically saying, "Well, the damage is done, so we might as well use these cells... Just don't let it happen again!" It will be interesting to see how the handling of future lines pans out.
"I'm just a boy who can't say no," said George W. Bush as he announced his decision to allow public funding of stem cell research. The President then burst into a medley of other songs from Oklahoma before someone reminded him that he had a speech to finish.
Some worry that in their push to get the funding approved, biologists have over-promised the potential of stem cells. Several scientists who testified on the issue have had to issue clarifications in recent days. For example, stem cell research will not one day lead to free trips to Disney World. And the field of study will likely never lead to the long-awaited vaccine for Cooties.
Time will tell.
Click here for the full story.
Nah, we programmers have our own battles to fight with the government in the future over what AI constitutes "life".
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
Youre girlfriend also says im WILD in the sack
I'm glad Bush allowed at least some testing of stem-cells. If he had completely banned them it would have removed one more option for research into parkinsons disease. My dad has parkinsons and i want him to have all the options he can get.
Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are not based on texts written and maintained over thousands of years, with more existing manuscripts than the Iliad.
But there is the same amount of evidence for them as there is for your 'god'. Just because lots of people believe something, does not make it true. You might want to check out The Logic FAQ.
Evil Overlord X
Coming to a third world country near you
'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.
>1. built untold nuclear arms, enough to wipe out the world multiple times.
well would you have rather have only the soviets had them, and don't try and tell me they wouldn't have.
Not saying that we should have stayed out of the arms race here, I was just saying that you cannot expect to get ethics out of an organization that builds excessive amounts of weapons meant to kill millions at a time.
2. that placed Japanese citizens in internment camps on the ridiculous notion that they would help a Japanese invasion of the West coast.
stupid, but considering how many other western countries did the same, the only ones that didn't were the ones that didn't allow them in the first place. This is not an excuse for what happened, but you must look at it in contex.
Studid? The other countries were supposedly fascist states. The revokation of habeas corpus was caused by hysteria and racism. And just because Nazi Germany did it too, doesn't make it right.
3. that tested LSD on its agents without theiri knowledge. This is the same government that did Vietnam, and is currently doing the same thing to Columbia.
There were thought to be few long term effects of LSD at the time, there is now far better testing. Learn from you mistakes.
Wasn't long term effects here. They gave the agents LSD, didn't tell them, and a few ended up killing themselves because they were going insane. As for Columbia, they are not learning from their mistakes, which is my point.
4. that will put you in jail for smoking a joint. 5. that arrested someone for violating its laws while in another country.
You do not get put in jail for smoking a joint. Selling it, or multiple offences might get you in jail, but as someone who was busted in hight school (i was 18), i can tell you that it really isn't taken as seriously as NORML might make it seem. The second part is to protect prostitutes in central America.
1. Obviously, you don't live in the Bible belt, which I unfortunately do.
2. What the hell were you talking about there? I was talking about Skylarov
6. is composed of politicians who seem primarily concerned with redistributing my wealth to people as a bribe to vote for them.
Its good to see that you are not fooled by sterotypes.
What? The redistribution of wealth is fundamental to the current political system. It is all about bribing the right groups with the right things. Health care coverage? More Medicaid? Sure. More entitlements? Sure. More free crap for the elderly? Sure. They will do anything to get elected, and most of it involves making us dig deeper every April 15.
The unique advantage of embryonic stem cells is their capacity to differentiate into any type of cell in the body. This opens the possibility of developing novel cellular therapies - especially for tissues that cannot normally repair or replace themselves (such as the brain or spine).
However, wouldn't these replacement cells be subject to immunological rejection if they were not genetically matched to the host? If so, the most beneficial embryonic stem cells might be those that are genetically matched to their host - i.e. stem cells from CLONE embryos.
Federal funding for stem cell research will allow the technology of stem cell therapies to be developed with existing cell lines. But when it comes to clinical use, these therapies may ultimately encourage human cloning as a source of genetically compatible stem cells. As long as this harvesting is privately funded, it does not violate the announced restrictions yet clearly reaps the benefits of publically funded research. This could be a slippery slope indeed.
Ideologically it would seem more natural for Bush to oppose stem cell research as his father did with fetal tissue research. On the other hand, the biomedical lobby is powerful and generous. One might interpret the President's decision as an attempt to mollify his pro-life constituency while leaving the door open for one of his deep-pocketed patrons. If so, did he step out onto the slippery slope of the human cloning debate accidentally or on purpose?
That would be bad, because then you'd have *gasp* a democracy!
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Or was that false?
Free Mac Mini
That's it exactly, then. Bush's policy doesn't even make any sense in the light of these facts. Is he defining some arbitrary cutoff date past which no new lines may be introduced? If not, then his proposal simply has no teeth when it comes to preventing harvesting of embryos.
"Destroy another fetus now, I don't like children anyhow."
-Leonard Cohen, "The Future"
My deviantArt site
Humans are also 78% compatible with bananas.....
When I were your age, all round here were fields...
At least, that's what some of the media says. I, however, take a slightly more grounded view.
Personally, I support this decision strongly - regardless of my personal views on the subject (of which I'm sure you're just dying to hear, right? Hello?)
It's in the President's best interest to appeal to as many groups as possible... after all, he does want to get re-elected (we assume).
I think this decision appeals to the largest possible group of Americans... including those who don't necessarily support it. The absolute conservatives will (and have) denounce this as a moral travesty, while the pro-research groups will lament the limited viability of the exisiting stem cell lines (claimed to be anywhere from 10 to 80, depending on who you ask).
What some people are forgetting is that no laws have been passed restricting the research - all that has been done is that FEDERAL funds have been restricted to a subset of the research. Private organizations are welcome to fund any type of research they want.
The pro-research groups need to realize that they're getting funding for a controversial line of research, and are welcome to do whatever research they'd like with private funds.
The pro-life groups need to realize that regardless of their feelings on the method of obtaining the existing stem cell lines, they *do* exist - abandoning them will not repair the moral injustice they feel has been done. The new guidlines on federal funding acts to represent their views by not supporting the destruction of human embryos (or "pre-embryos").
Frankly, I think Mr. Bush has dodged a major bullet here. Important research will continue with the federal government's assistance, and major moral questions will remain at least partially unchallenged.
-- "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"
I wasn't claiming anything, and neither was that website. You obviously didn't take the time to read or carefully consider it's contents.
I am well aware of the effect the judeo-christian tradition has had on the culture and customs in my part of the world, however, for me to be able to point out things about indoctrination (read: brain-washing), group mentality, and exclusivism (which are present to some degree in ALL organized philisophical/relegious mindsets, by the way) that are harmful to the people who have allowed someone else to "do their thinking for them".
I haven't, (nor have I ever) said that relegion is intrinsically harmful or dangerous. There are "good" and "bad" people in any relegion, i don't care if it's christianity or Wiccan. There are the churches that enhance the life of all of its members and the surrounding community, and there are also churches that play rythmic, repetative music (to induce a transe-like state in the congregation), and then show video tapes detailing how homosexuals should all be killed and driven from our country. What puts me off about organized religion is that there really isn't an easy way to tell who the nice people are, and which ones are psychos.
Marx was cuttingly accurate when he referred to relegion as the "opiate of the masses", so I don't really think you understand the quote. Saying this dosen't imply that it didn't have any effect on the way the world has developed, quite the opposite. We have everything from the inquisition to abortion clinic murders to thank for this powerful drug of relegion. A lot of good comes from it too, of course.
Either way, relegion is an "opiate" in the fact that it is dumbed down so that even the least intelligent person in the population can understand and participate in it, all they have to do is subordinate their will. It makes people feel better about themselves, absolves them of guilt and fear, and takes away a degree of freedom. Much like an opiate (i'm thinking you probably don't know that heroin, morphine, and opium are all examples of "opiates"). Marx draws the paralell between an individual using a drug, and a society that allows outdated moralism to make decisions for them, without objectively questioning the dynamic nature of Ethics, and how it might apply differently in a different time and place. Singer is another great modern philosapher to read about the objectivity of ethics (we read his book "Practical Ethics" in Philosaphy and Social Ethics).
For more information on how modern relegion uses practices similar to brain-washing to garuntee the continued support of it's members, do a websearch for an essay titled "The Battle For Your Mind" by Dick Sutphen (i think i spelled that right).
To summarize, you have made the logical fallacy of saying that one who calls christianity Evil (which I have not done, remember) contradicts knowlege that the judeo-christian tradition has had an important impact on our modern culture. This statement is flawed, since it is perfectly possible to recognize the impact christianity has had on modern culture, and -still- call it "evil". While i think that it would be somewhat of an unfair generalization (perhaps it would be more fair to say -all- organized relegions have the -potential- to be extremely harful), it is not self-contradictory.
To make matters worse, you don't really have any idea what my "heritage" is. I could be a Native American, and I could logically say that christianity IS evil, since it's responsible for spreading countless diseases to that population, along with subverting and slowly destroying the purity of the culture. I could say my heritage was that of the Moors, and call christianity evil because the inquisitian slew many of my anscestors.
Before you accuse me of a logical inconsistancy, it might be a good idea to carefully consider your point.
You are very right when you say that he sacrificed ideology in favour of the safest political move. I am very disappointed, but then I realize that that as pathetic as this is, it is very typical of politicians and, indeed, people in general.
But this realization only makes me more disappointed.
I thought he was taking his time because he wanted to present the appearance of actually considering it, but he actually did
I am still doubtful of this. I think he was more concerned with finding a politically neutral compromise, rather than being branded either as a right-wing heartless religious fanatic or a liar who reversed yet another of his campaign promises. The delay was probably necessary to consult with his advisers. There was a Reuters article after his meeting with the Pope on this topic, and I thought it quite funny that he actually said that (paraphrase) This is something I will have to think long and hard about, which is unusual for my administration. (/paraphrase)
As for the topic of my note, I think his was a cop-out solution. The fact is, these fetuses are being destroyed every day. They were not being bred for the purpose of stem cell research (although, I do not doubt that this possibility could arise, something could have been done about that separately - you dont throw the baby away with the bathwater, no pun intended). Why not, as the plains indians did, use all the parts of the buffalo? If a fetus is going to be destroyed anyway, why not allow this? That is what I dont understand, at least offer the parents a choice of whether or not to let it be used. I do not see a moral dilemma here.
The ivory tower has never had to reach so h
Ok, I missed it. What does stem cell research really have to do with human cloning?
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
How did this get rated "5, Insightful" when it contains such blatantly inflammatory language and has no new information?
Here's the insight: Our determination of when the collection of cells becomes human is entirely arbitary, with no hope of becoming factual at any point in the near future. Until we can find some way to make the determination, we will be spending public money on actions that part of the public believes to be equivalent to murder.
The assertion that 4-5 cells do not constitute human life was correctly labeled as a "belief." The belief that a single fertilized cell is also human life is another widely held belief, and until you can produce refuting evidence, it is just as valid as any other belief.
Judebert
"We're out of explosives. What we need is a plan!"
For geek dads: Contraction Timer
LOL, I bet you had no problems when Gore was using lawyers to challenge twice validate results ?
If Bush had dirty hands then Gore was covered by dirt.
Parents are granted the power to decide for their children provided their decision is in the best interest of the child. Killing said child obviously isn't.
You can't possibly be serious.
So, when does conciousness and self-awareness begin? Can you even find a consensus among scientists about what those two things _are_, much less when they begin?
Can you measure when they begin? Do they begin in infancy, or early childhood? If an infant doesn't have "conciousness" or "self-awareness," does that mean it isn't a human life, and that we should feel free to harvest tissue from it? The notion turns my stomach.
In my opinion, a human being comes into existence when the ovum and sperm come together. It has a great deal of developing and maturing to do, but its stage of development or maturity has nothing to do with its humanity.
I don't know of any other hard line that can be drawn. Talk of "ensoulment" is interesting theologically, but useless because answers about when that takes place--or if it takes place, for that matter--are all over the place, depending on whom you ask. Conciousness and self-awareness is similar. Physiological development, such as the formation of the central nervous system, are equally weak. How much of a nervous system does it take?
Don't get me started on that ever-so-foolish notion of "viability."
------ "Darn floor. Big bite." (Koko the gorilla's best attempt at explaining the experience of an earthquake.)
ALEC GUINESS VOICEOVER I'D LOVE TO HEAR: Washington, DC. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villany. We must be cautious.
That would be a priceless sound clip to have.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Kind of odd that there's such a brouhaha about this, given that most of the real progress wth stem cells has not featured fetal tissue in any form. But the placenta/umbilical cord issue does seem to have been addressed by this, which is nice. I like the idea of that former waste product being put to something useful.
Honorary Member of Jackie Chan's Kung Fu Process Servers
My question is, why do the non supporters feel this is a win? The government didn't stop these companies from getting NEW STEM CELLS, they just stopped the funding on that spcific process.
The researchj WILL go on and i'm happy to say i support it 100%. With 2 grandparents that have alzheimers (and died..) and my wifes father dying a horribly painfull death from cancer i can only have praise for such research.
And lastly, my beliefs is that 4-5 cells do not constitue life, if that is the beginnings of life then sue me for masturbating away billions of cells that would HAVE or COULD have brought "life".
And for the religious right wingers who's life is in gods hands, i hope you don't ruin it for people who believe in god but believe in humans and science as well.
I want my replacement body parts, and I want them at reasonable prices.
If on the other hand, you believe they aren't life, then not experimenting on the other surplus embryos that will be discarded anyway is a poor decision because it holds back the progress of science in curing some terrible diseases and afflictions.
It appears Bush avoided an ideological decision and opted for the political decision that made everyone a bit happy with some reservations. This should have been an all or nothing decision.
A coworker pointed out that if there shouldn't be a moral objection to using discarded fetuses. The moral objection, if one exists, must be with the people who allowed the fetuses to be created in the first place. Once that step is taken, then using the discarded fetuses for research is at least more noble than flushing them down the toilet.
but I think he made the best political decision! This should appease some of the moderates that would have totally abandoned him if he had banned the research completely. The dems would have only been happy if he had given the bank away for the funding. If he had done that though, he would have lost the people on the far right, and probably much of the red map. Now nobody is too pissed off at him.
The only thing that troubles me is that he is trying to play this off as if it wasn't a political decision, but a personal one. He heard moving stories from both sides, but when it came down to it he went with the best political position he could take. If he had gone with his gut he would have kept his campaign promise!
His father said "Read my lips no new taxes". W said "No federal funded embryonic stem cell research". Will this haunt him like his father's campaign pledge did?
You missed the point of my last post.
;) It has nothing to do with faith.
As we determined that abortion comes down to religion, one group should not have the right to force their views on it apon others.
-= rei =-
P.S. Merriam-Webster defines atheism as a disbelief in the existence of deity, and religion as the service and worship of God or the supernatural.
P.P.S. - if you want to get into a debate on the necessity (or, actually, lack of necessity) of faith in atheism, I'll be glad to oblige
*Kid Rock runs for Senate* Democrats: We must run Kid Scissors.
These stem cell lines are no longer a living entity. Would I own the ashes of a creamated relative? If I kept my apendix in a little glass jar would I own it? If I then gave it to someone else would they own it? If it was stolen from me would it not be essentially the property of the thief?
I am having trouble finding where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights the government is givin the task of dolling out tax dollars to fund any medical research. Could someone point me in the right direction?
Research should be privately funded.
I hope that if you ever get a fatal disease with no known cure, that you'll look back at your own opinion and realize how incredibly arrogant you sound right now. Your lack of empathy for other human beings is appalling.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
I'm not surprised. All he really did here was provide just enough funding so that regulations the feds will be able to impose 'guidlines'. All they have to do is add a stiputlation that anyone that recieves funding must not create any new cell lines, ect, ect, ect.
Its a joke really. Those that oppose the research feal like he did a good thing by putting a block in front of uncontrolled research. Those that support the research feel it is a victory because it was anything other than a total ban on the research.
I have a feeling that cloning is going to fall into a similar result. Since people are going to do it, you might as well make it legal, but impose strict guidelines to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. God forbid some cloning accident in montana results in 497 million billion Lintilla's
Slashdot is an anagram for Has Dolts, and I am Dolt number 468543
One very interesting result of Bush's announcement is that we are beginning to see the same change in him as a President that we have seen in our last two (Clinton and the other Bush). GWB came into office on a very conservative platform and immediately began implementing conservative policies and reversing many Clinton policies. Public reaction to these actions was mixed, but I think generally unfavorable. GWB's foreign policy has received a huge amount of criticism both at home and abroad. But now we are seeing Bush being forced to shift more to the center. He won't ban federal funding for stem cell research outright. He won't unilaterally proceed on a lot of the foreign policy or military intiatives that he has lately been pursuing. I think as his administration moves forward, we are going to see more movement to the center. I believe that no president can expect to be successful in today's political climate without becoming a conciliator of vastly different viewpoints. The notion that either conservatives or liberals run this country at any one time lives on only as a fiction convenient for reelection and media purposes.
really? imagine a society where we did not protect human life... would you like to live there?
now imagine a society where we protected all life including plants and bacteria: kill nothing. would you like to live there?
now consider the society in which we live with those formerly inscrutable (to you) mores... make a little more sense to you? if not, please begin to live the way you think we should and report back once in a while; it should be humorous for the rest of us.
isn't making a good decision the best way to hedge against critisism?
Good question!
No. If one keeps both goals in mind, he's screwed. And doing the right thing doesn't mean one won't be criticised.
But saying that what he did was right or wrong is beyond my point. What I understood from his address last night was: the White House is not sure whether embryos are living humans or not, but we will fund research on this technology anyway, as long as application papers don't mention the icky part.
As long as politicians can continue to convince the populus that issues like this are the most important, they will continue to sell our rights to corporate interests in exchange for the campaign contributions which keep them in office.
/. community).
It is absurd that something like this gets as much attention as it did. This wasn't a legal question of whether scientists are allowed to study stem cells. It was a study of whether tax dollars will fund it (will researchers share profits with the government when they discover a cure for some disease...hell no, they'll patent it and retire).
Meanwhile important issues like personal freedom v. corporate profit are ignored (outside of the
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
In AD 2001 ...
Stem Cell Research Was Begining
Bush: What happen?
Advisor: Someone set up us the research
Lackey: We get controversey!
Bush: What !
Lackey: Make decision !
Bush: It's you !
American Public: How are you President !!
AMerican Public: All your scrutiny are belong to us !
American Public: You are not on your way to re-election !
Bush: What you say !!
American Public: You have no chance to keep office make your decision
American Public: HA HA HA HA
Bush: Take off every "funding"
Bush: You know what you researching
Bush: Move limited "funding"
Bush: For great cure
Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.
For better or worse we are product of Christianity.
By claiming that this religion is evil and "opium for the masses" you are denying your own heritage.
At least he didn't shut down the research. This action leaves open the posibility of extending the research if it proves out.
The reason for limiting the source of the cells has to do with the right to life. Destroying potential embryos (that aren't being implanted but could be) would be considered murder by many. Using already harvest cells changes nothing.
Maybe this country will yet survive this president, till we can actually elect the next one.
Please, do it now. You are killing Mother Earth by living. You computer that you used to type your response is killing her. Your CO2 from your lungs is making her warm up.
You and I were once one-celled organisms!
RE: ad hominem
You miss the point of the crux of ad hominem. This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. You said "when a materialist makes [this claim]..." you refer to a person's quality affecting the assertion.
RE: What I'm saying it I'm saying is that pure science - absent the influence of morality - leads to disastrous consequences. Science is not able to determine right from wrong.
Pure science is exactly that. Neither right nor wrong. So how does a theologian get to ascribe morality to knowledge? Or you, for that matter? Pure science in and of itself isn't evil - but theologians and others have said so, because they believe it to threaten their world-view. The world not being flat, therefore the Bible is wrong, that kind of worry.
RE: Because according to the laws of science, we are not able to produce matter from non-matter.
E=mc squared. We can create energy from matter - it should be a matter of time before we do the reverse. Again, you're ducking the question. Whether Charlton Heston bathed in light suddenly caused everything to appear, or it just came into being, it had to come into being, from nothing.
RE: God is non-material, and is not subject to the laws of science.
You assume God exists.
RE: Based on our experience, it does not make sense to assert that the universe came from nothing.
Just because we didn't experience it doesn't mean That is not naturally possible.
RE: Therefore, we need to look to supernatural causes.
Well, you go off and pray for enlightenment, and leave research to the rational people.
RE: Ethics and morality typically have a theological basis.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. OK, we'll leave the discrepancies between ethics and religion out of it, OK?
RE: Not only that, but GWB lives in a political world where the majority of his constituency believes in God.
That's arguing to the masses, another fallacy. Just because a bunch of Texans and Arknasawsians (sp?) think that a guy in a bathrobe wove a wand and made everything doesn't mean it should be the basis for research.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
So Texas is the US version of Quebec?
"Splitting the baby" indeed. It was an excellent call in many regards and, but for his campaign promises, may well be taken as presidential.
But one is left to wonder how, exactly, can one "compromise" on these questions? If the fertilized egg is not a living human being, then the question is a no-brainer: of course, you harvest the tissues for life-saving research. If the fertilized egg is a living human being, then the question is likewise a no-brainer: of course, you may not harvest the tissues, even if it has potential to save a life.
If you recognize a third possibility, that the fertilized egg is merely a potential life, then we have much deeper --and intellectually far more interesting-- questions. When does a potential life require protection from harm?
Of course, these questions defy authoritative answer -- and yet a binary policy decision must be made (for even the failure to make a decision effectively serves as a decision). The President was therefore faced with a Hobson's choice.
To that end, this left-of-Che-liberal salutes the man (or his advisors). It would be a great cop-out to simply announce a result, or worse, to announce a result and give a half-of-the-case justification, or worse yet, to do all of that and undertake to marginalize other reasonable arguments.
He actually gave a fair summary of some of the difficult issues and announced his policy without pretending that a fundamental principal that required the result. This enures much to his credit. (Alas, his spinmeisters continue to try to pretend this is consistent with those campaign promises and pose him as the ultimate pro-life candidate, but what can you do?)
Bush solved the political quandry by reducing the problem of sponsoring fertilized-egg-killing to one of "what do you do with the socially positive profits of an act, if the act is arguably immoral?" Credit where credit is due -- this is a stroke of genius. One needs to violate Godwin's law to point out the ultimate difficulties of the ethical position (something along the lines of whether it would be morally right to use Mengele's research if it yielded a cure for Cancer) taken, and in the end, the secret heart of most Americans wants the potential cure more than they understand the enormity of harvesting a non-implanted fertilized egg.
Amusingly, few people seem to have identified the actual ethical issue-shift that the policy accomplished. Amazingly, Hughes actually side-stepped a question about Catholic dissent by pointing out that a Pope had blessed the use of medicines resulting from research that included acts previously deemed immoral. However many debating points she thinks that may have won on intellectual grounds, suggesting a Pope's absence of infallibility suddenly unfinesses all of Bush's successes for the day.
Time will tell if there will be a price to be paid on this one. Bush turned a Hobson's choice into a chance for success and sound policy -- sound indicia of leadership.
Whether or not it succeeds, this left-liberal salutes a brilliant piece of political strategy.
I'm just gonna reply to the script part, since the office is closing down, and it's time to go home :)
.5% beneficial, the population's going to be killed off by the harmful mutations before it evolves the beneficial ones that would change it into a different species.
Basically, that given a certain population, if each "round" (loop) of mutation is 99.5% harmful and
Or did I completely miss what you were trying to say?
Basically, that line that confused you was my "reproduction" simulation - the survivors have offspring - in this case, 50 offspring per survivor, making the total population 50 times as large. The process is then repeated.
You're misinformed about the morning-after pill if you think it works by making a woman "damn near infertile."
In some cases, the mechanism by which it works is preventing ovulation. But in other cases, it interferes with an already-fertilized egg's ability to implant in the uterine wall. And any time you thwart a living embryo, whether surgically or chemically, it's an abortion.
The first mechanism is identical to conventional birth control pills -- and if that were the only mechanism, it wouldn't be any more controversial than conventional birth control pills. It's the second mechanism that many people have a problem with. (And a lot of people who don't have a problem with the morning-after pill, do, after this mechanism is explained to them.)
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Bush just copped out on this issue. He couldn't decide which way to go, so he decided to find a way out so he wouldn't piss off more people than necessary. On a side not, W really needs to learn how to read from a teleprompter without it looking like he is. He looked like Gore did when Gore gave speeches. His eyes never once looked into the camera they were always off to one side(I can't remeber which right or left) reading what his script writers wrote for him. If he did look at the camera he would come off as more convincing.
"Success is not the result of spontaneous combustion. You must first set yourself on fire." -- Fred Shero
Each one of those 60 stem cell lines is divided up and stored in multiple locations.
For simplicity, think of identical copies of a stem cell sitting in different petri dishes. As the cells reproduce, you can continue to split up the population into more and more petri dishes (32, then 64, then 128...).
If one of those cells mutates and then reproduces, ruining the population in one of the petri dishes, just discard it -- you still have 127 dishes that contain pristine copies of that stem cell line.
As the number of seperated populations increases, the chance that a mutation (or a lab file, or mishandling by a technician) could kill off a stem cell line decreases exponentially.
Taking it from the top:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Skipping a bit to Article I, Section 8:
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Doesn't anybody actually read the source material anymore?
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
(Not addressed at you -- I'm just taking this line because it's the core assertion of those who oppose such research, and you phrased it perfectly.)
So I'll take it at face value. I'll make an argument based on the assumption (IMHO erroneous) that a single fertilized cell constitutes life.
Why must embryonic stem cell research destroy life?
They're stem cells. Undifferentiated. If you wanted to "clone" one, you'd do it the same way you made an identical twin -- wait for it to divide, and separate the two cells.
If one stem cell is a human life, why not let it divide, grab one for research, and stick the other - identical cell - back into the freezer where you got it.
(And when some fundie says "You still destroyed one life, and suspended another", ask the fundie who created the second life. Without the lab researcher separating the two cells, there would be only one embryo. Will the fundie accept that a mere lab technician can create a new life two? Or will he acknowledge that the remaining cell we put back in the freezer is every bit the "person" it was before it divided.)
http://www.nih.gov/news/stemcell/primer.htm
I suggest people read this before posting because it seems to clear up a lot of the misconceptions readers have, even myself.
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
What a self-serving, arbitrary, ethically vacuous definition that is. Run away, Dr. Mengele. We know what you thought about your research, and we aren't interested.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
As for those who say, "But the word `abortion' isn't in the Bible," you're right. But this is, from Exodus chapter 21:
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
By not voting for the political party in power at the next election! DUH!
Fundamental research will not be funded by private companies! So what you want is no university. This is completely idiotic. When companies are doing research, it's almost entirely based on what was done before at universities.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
Procedure Religious_Right_Response(var Dubya)
Case Dubya=Total_Ban
Yeah_He_Protects_Life()
Otherwise
He_is_a_dumbass()
EndCase
EndProc
Procedure Medical_Community_Response(var Dubya)
Case Dubya=Total_Funding
He_is_progressive()
Otherwise
He_is_a_dumbass()
EndCase
EndProc
--- Explains the reactions.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
It is my belief that human life begins at conception and should not be terminated artificially under any circumstances. It's relatively easy to come to a decision on embryonic stem cell research given that position.
Even if you don't accept that humans have souls, you must accept that the embryo has the potential to become a fully-formed human being. Why should human life in later stages get special treatment?
"Giving birth prematurely" was death to the child at that time. It's not like they could stick a premature birth on an incubator or anything.
...and yet no mischief follow...
This is not necessarily true. If she was close to nine months, the child had a fair chance to survive without an incubator.
Sounds like a euphemism for miscarrige to me. I don't know how it reads in the original yiddish, that would be more accurate. Hence the problem using the Bible to argue any point.
I guess it all depends on which Bible you use.
I will have to talk with my uncle about it. Besides knowing Latin, I believe he keeps up with more accurate translations. He has lots of books on the subject of Bible translation.
I wonder what mischief they are talking about.
Remember, many Christians had zero problem with slavery cause it was in the Bible. Wasn't right. But then again, neither is massacring people and raping their children. Which according to the OT is just fine and dandy because God delivers these people into your hands. Ethics, sure I can buy that. Making sure that religious issues are covered, ennnnhhhhhh, no.
I spent an hour today writing up an essay on the true lack of difference between ethics and morality to attempt to convince you that theologians are just as important, but then the futility of it struck me when I reread the above quoted paragraph. You wouldn't care no matter what I said, so why bother?
I've been through this way too many times. I get tired of dealing with bigots who attempt to paint the philosophy of my family and friends as one of hatred, murder, and everything else that it in truth stands against. It's a waste of energy. Religion is evil in your eyes, and nothing I say can change that. All I am left with is this request:
Quit trolling. You're adding nothing productive to this discussion or any other with this blatant bigotry.
If you actually understood religions and thought hard about human nature, you might actually see the seperation between the philosophy and the deeds to people professing to be its practitioners. The actions you describe are functionally no different from how modern politicians do harmful things to a cause while claiming to act in its name, such as GWB on the environment.
That is all I have to say. You may now have the last word if it makes you feel better.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
For the record, anyone still pissed with this decision and remotely aware of the way politics works in America is unlikely to think that this was a huge comprimise on his part because we're all quite aware of exactly how much power Bush has personally.
Other things wrong with this post have already been noted, but somebody mod it down.
I wonder how many others in the lifer contingent are similarly only pro-life because it's either convienent or because they have a selfish cause of their own to be pro-life. How many of them, faced with a decision like "back stem cell research or spend the rest of your life in a wheelchair," would say "YEAH BABY! LINE THOSE FETUSSES UP!" Perhaps it's just that while they feel fetusses are human life, all human life is not created equal. Seems to me that if your politicis are pro-life, any choice other than rejecting all stem cell research (And anything that comes from that research) out of hand is complete hypocracy. I wonder just how many hypocrites the future will show the lifer demographic to have...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Thanks for the link! I've not seen this before. It's going to make for some interesting reading!
/. posts, but I've managed to get completely offtopic in the process ^_^
Yes, I read your post on the thermodynamics. I'll have to do a little research into it before I can properly reply to it.
THIS is what I've hoped to accomplish by this - get some information I've not yet heard and learn about it. I readily admit that I've been taught a 1-sided view, which I do believe is very valid, and I'll do my best to defend. But I'm perfectly open to learning and thinking on the subject. Possibly the worst thing one can do is refuse to learn.
Best regards to you, Rei, eviloverlordx, and Bobo. It's quite pleasant, albeit different, to debate with people who can not only give logical answers, but back them up.
I'm going to do some reading on speciation and crossbreeding, and see what I come up with.
I do believe I've not only spent the entire day replying to
You're not even close! Anyway, you're both wrong, since we call the government a Republic. In reality, though, our government is a corporate republic.
But in no way shape or form is our government a theocracy!
You don't have to believe in a soul at all to believe that human life has a great deal of value. You don't see atheists running around calling for a repeal of the laws against killing adults, do you?
Although strangely, many of us did try to get the law to allow the killing of fetuses, and were sucessful with Roe vs. Wade. I'm an atheist, and I can't figure out why most of my fellow atheists harbor so much contempt for that particular stage of human development.
"Fetus" is just one among many stages in the development of a human being: fetus, infant, toddler, child, teen, young adult, middle-aged adult, senior citizen. All of these stages ought to be equally valued; they all deserve equal protection under the law against those who would do them harm. Why arbitrarily single out one of those stages, "fetus," and say it is less valuable than the others?
"Fetuses can't live on their own outside the womb," I've heard some say. Well the same is true of most five-year-old children -- they would perish if an adult didn't provide them with food and shelter. Does that mean it's OK to kill five-year-old children?
"Fetuses have very little cognitive development," I've heard others say. Well a one-month-old infant also has very little cognitive development, compared with an adult. Does that mean it's OK to kill one-month-old infants?
Nope, there's no argument that stands up to reason and logic. It's just ghastly that an otherwise civilized society allows members in the first stage of development to literally be dismembered when it would inconvenience one of the members in a later stage of development.
When you take stem cells from an animal, there is still the issue of life and death. Why is it different to kill an animal as opposed to a human EMBRYO? I'm just a little confused...
Mike
--Ask a silly person, get a silly answer.
I think market forces exert more influence on quality control than the FDA.
To see what a great job market forces did on quality control in the meat packing industry, read this book.
The market is concered with one thing. Making money. If money can be made by screwing people over, it will happen.
-WintermuteI have a question:
Why is it The religious extreme and The scientific community?
I could just as easily say the supporters of life and the killers of babies -- but you'd probably call that hate speech.
Those opposed to human embryo stem cell research are not neccessarily extreme, or even religious. And those scientists who will pursue the research are not neccessarily pure, or even scientific. They could be complete charlatans, only wanting the funding because they're greedy. Hell, what if one of the scientists create a cure for alzheimers from this research and manages to patent it? What will you say then?
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Education is the church's traditional enemy, because it allows people to expand their minds up to and beyond the point where they can understand the church for what it really is. That's why the church quietly but vigorously supports attacks on secular public education of every kind (brutal funding cuts, campaigns to destroy their image, creationism in science class, vouchers, charters). They have been devastatingly successful at it.
Contracteption and abortion are also enemies of the church, because they directly cut off its supply line. Adults don't convert. Children of believers, ignorant, poorly educated children, are the church's future. Lower the birth rate, and you choke off the church's blood supply. Allow the ignorant and the innocent to produce babies like rabbits - which the church quietly and vigorously encourages (WIC, child welfare, church hospitals, "young parent centers") - and the church grows by leaps and bounds.
The stem cell issue is a perfect example. It's as though everyone has been whacked in the head with a big stick. Can't you see it? Bush made a predictable compromise - Pat Robertson isn't going to vote for Al Gore, no matter what W does - but before it was over, his wife carelessly reminded us that "those embryos were going to be destroyed anyway" - hey, wait a minute. which embryos, again?
Yes, as a matter of fact, embryos are already being harvested and destroyed in great numbers. But the church doesn't make a stink over the hundreds of thousands of human embryos already being created and destroyed ... when it's in a fertility clinic.
The battle over contraception was fought and lost. Most of you are too young too remember. But the pope stood up against the pill just as violently as he stands up against Roe v. Wade. When the dust settled and it was clear that contraception was here to stay, it made the battle over abortion that much more important.
The problems started when the church saw embryonic stem cell research as a potential problem for their upcoming anti-abortion play (oh yes, they're planning to take it all the way - with the biggest push right before the end of W's first term). Think of the law passed recently making assaulting a pregnant woman also an assault on the fetus - but this is the reverse; a potential political inconsistency too big to ignore. So they applied pressure.
But it's a delicate situation, because there are enough people around who, even if they can't see the forest for the trees, know the science is important, that the genie is not going back in the bottle, and they don't want to see our best and brightest minds go overseas to do their work in places run by smarter people.
Study history. The church is not about faith. It's about power. And when you consider the people willing to prop God on a pedestal in order to achieve it - you may begin to understand what they are capable of.
Seperation of Church and State doesn't exist in the United States. After all, 'In God We Trust'.
I don't blame Mr. Bush for his decision. He's a politician. Just as we know that Microsoft really isn't nice and cares more for profits than it does for consumers, we know that politicians tend to care more for their career's survival. As a result, they listen to various religious groups, because said religious groups vote, and they vote in mass numbers. They've got no choice but to listen if they want to keep the religious vote.
Back in the day of plagues, knights and vicious bloody campaigns that left many a man with a hacked off limb, a certain church attempted to have crossbows banned. They were immoral, as they were (At the time, compared to other weaponry) so accurate and deadly.
Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? I only hope that our current generation, and the generations after us, continue to see such attempts at stifling technology for what they are. That they continue to face the hard issues at hand, and determine, without religious or ignorant bias, if something is ethical.
If your respective deity does not want you to take part in such immoral acts that may soon be possible, such as replacement organ cloning, treaments for diseases that came from stem cells, and the like.. Then by all means, rot and die.
Don't ruin it for the rest of us. Don't push us into another Dark Age.
Humanity will, if it survives long enough, continue to gain knowledge until we understand the very workings of the universe itself. Our chances of surving that long will be greatly increased if we aren't held back by fear and lack of knowledge, as if we are not held back, then, we can proceed forward at an astonishing rate.
I challenge everyone, to attempt to understand developing technology before condemning it. I issue a challenge to sit down and discuss the ethical problems posed by the advancement of science, rather than slapping a 'banned' label on it and making it disappear forever.
While bad things may come from the misuse of technology (See atomics for example, specifically, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, the Cold War..), we must consider what good may come from said technology as well. The world isn't black and white, only shades of grey. A cd-burner isn't bad, even though it can be used to expediate the pirating of software and music. A baseball bat isn't bad, even though it may be used to crush a man's skull. Likewise, the latest scientific explorations into cloning, genetic engineering, and stem cell research aren't bad.
Humans are the force responsible for the misuse of technology. No technology is inherenty evil, technology is only what we make of it.
With an open mind, we can do wonderous things.
With a closed mind, we're only damning ourselves.
Its harder than that. In Florida about five years back, a family had a child with a mortal birth defect, no cerebellum. The anencephallic child would "live" in the womb, grow organs, and live via involuntary breathing without assistance for a few hours only.
The parents were given the opportunity to abort, but opted to bring the child to term, so that the organs could be harvested and some good could come from their tragedy. Religious groups sued to enjoin the harvest, and the matter went straight to the Florida Supreme Court, which held under the brain death statute that a single pulse to or from a brain stem is sufficient to preclude considering the child dead.
As it turned out, for the infant, the organs were worthless unless they could be harvested before the child aesphixiated naturally. The victorious plaintiffs held a garish, insensitive rally, waving the injunction papers as proof of the preempinent importance of "life."
At the hospital, however, the parents could only watch helplessly as their child was brought to term, born "alive," and ultimately suffocated to death, destroying all the organs to no end at all. Their child never felt, never thought, never sensed an external stimulus and never manifest any of the sensibilities we associate with life.
Not that this case didn't represent difficult and deep questions, and I doubt the Supreme Court's question (construction of the brain death statute) readily allowed any other result, but the overarching tragedy of the matter was remarkable.
Well I don't see what the big deal is... I mean after all, it's not like some money will be magically created to fund this research. It always has to be taken from somewhere else. No matter what, we're paying for it. So if it means you don't pay that much taxes next year, just donate the extra amount to the researchers instead. Oh but... I guess most people aren't THAT enthusiastic about it. Only when they think the money's not coming from their own pocket. (It all comes from you anyway!)
"he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
You're not completely missing the point. Here are a few things you are missing that might help you understand the issue:
Even the staunch opponents of embryonic stem cell research would agree that your life is just as valid as any other -- even that cluster of cells they believe is human.
The difference in the cases you cite is that you are already dead before we do research with your corpse. The child is already dead before we do research with its corpse. We have to kill the embryo before we can do research on its corpse.
You noted that the embryo will be flushed anyway; killed in any case. That's another point the opponents dislike. They believe that flushing the embryo is a problem, too.
The US government itself just said that it won't spend people's money on research that involves killing an embryo. It also said that it would continue to fund research where the embryo is already dead, and it would increase research funding for stem cells obtained from sources where human life isn't an issue.
Note that the US government didn't say that it doesn't want research to happen. The House of Representatives may say such a thing later this month, but I'll hold comment on that until it happens.
Judebert
"We're out of explosives. What we need is a plan!"
For geek dads: Contraction Timer
I just wonder where he got the number 60 from. Are they registerd somewhere? If not, how can one prove any particular cell culture predates 8/9/01?
Any way, W managed to demonstrate a tremendous lack of political guts by searching for months to find the microscopic middle ground.
I think that it is a difficult issue, but I also think that we all, in part and to different degrees, are to blame when we decide that one life is of less dignity and value than any other and dictate its destruction.
The difference between Adult stem cells, and embryonic stem cells is that embryonic stem cells can be made into ANY type of cell, heart, lung you name it. Multi-purpose. Adult stem cells already have the type of cell it is. One purpose. Thats why they use embryonic.
-- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
We ARE talking about destroying a life. An embryo, or a blastocyst (which is just another word for an embryo at a certain stage), or even a zygote is not "potential" human life, it is a human life, by all biological definitions. It is a genetically distinct, living human.
On the other hand, by all biological definitions, an ovum is not a human, nor is a sperm.
------ "Darn floor. Big bite." (Koko the gorilla's best attempt at explaining the experience of an earthquake.)
Of all the posting so far, none have dealt with the real issue. Not that we can, but wether we should. If you consider life beginning at conception, then those 1200 babies born from these "adopted" embrios to be "undead". If you consider the ends justify the means, then why would you cringe at the idea of WWII Nazi experiments on pregnant women. Not one post/story on /. has addressed the fact that fetal tissue research results have been useless till this point, and that the more mature matter taken from adults has actually shown _SOME_ advantages, why would you go looking at an even MORE unstable cellular form to do research on.
To put this into geek terms, just remember what happened in StarTrek 3 with their use of "ProtoMatter".
What sickens me about this is that apparently the only way some people can think about a new technology is in terms of how to exploit it so callously like this. I mean, we can already create test tube babies. Nobody's carving them up for their organs just because they were born in an unusual way. Why should clones be different just because of the content of their genes?
My deviantArt site
But the Mengele's research was kept and used. We actually know much more about hypothermia now than we would w/o that research.
His research was awful, horrific and barbaric, but the moral choice was made to use it so that his subjects did not die in vain. Would you have preferred that his research was just thrown away, so that more people could die needlessly from hypothermia because we don't know how to treat it as well?
This was the first question I asked at the end of the address. I havn't heard any discussion concerning ownership, but I do wonder how many lines are in private (vs. public university) hands.
Ideology breeds Hypocrisy. Just how much is up to you.
ooo!
a partisan comment
lets see if i can come up with one: ooh i know! the Clinton News Network! wow, im smart!
cut the crap Rob and dont resort to juvenile comments.
That's the amusing thing about a democracy; instead of one sick, insane monster of a dictator doing evil things, you can have an entire populace doing evil things. I'll point out that originally, only white male land owners (possibly of a strict age range; can't remember) were supposed to be able to vote in the states.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
An action that will have both good and bad consequences is morally allowable only if it meets the following criteria:
1. The action must be good or morally neutral - experimentation with simple cells is morally neutral
2. One must intend only a good effect - curing diseases using stem cell research is good!
3. Proportionality - The good brought about must be proportionally greater than the bad brought about by the action. In other words, experimenting on some cells from a dead fetus might be OK if millions could be cured of illness.
But here's the catch:
4. The bad effect can't be a means to the good. In other words, one can't kill a fetus (I take the position that a fetus DOES have moral worth) in order to bring out the good of saving others.
This principle of double effect shows why it's OK to use Nazi research because you're not doing an evil (just reading documents, not killing people) in order to produce a good (helping people). On the other hand, if you sponsor the killing of people even vicariously, you are doing a moral wrong!
You are confusing "samples" and "lines."
Research can be funded on the 60 existing "lines" of stem cells already harvested from which a theoretical infinite amount of stem cells can be derived. The controversy arises from the lack of genetic diversity in only 60 lines. These lines will be tracked by the government so that only those stem cells will be used in federally funded research.
yeah, and then we'd be really off-topic. Too bad.
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
Naw, he's just getting really old and had to change his adult diaper.
*grin*
I thought it took alot of guts for television to say that sort of thing. I'm glad that they didn't try to tear this issue into a 30 second sound byte and pretend that they totally understood everything about the issue after the speach.
You sir are a moron. Why don't you tie a brick to your leg and jump off a bridge into Lake XYZ.
Just because a bunch of people believe or do something stupid, doesn't make it any less stupid.
As to your supposed lack of evidence, there's plenty. For example, note that the Universe exhibits intelligent design. Explain how you can get complex life and thought from time + chance. The law of entropy states otherwise. If the law of entropy holds true, order cannot come from disorder. And therefore, everything is random. Including your thoughts. Which completely invalidates any and all argument you may make, because they are naught but random noise. Before you go citing a logic FAQ, consider that a prerequisite to logic is the ability to reason
Ummm...clearly, you need to buy a clue. First of all, there is no evidence that the universe displays 'Intelligent Design'. I would love a mainstream reference from a refereed journal backing up your assertion.
Second of all, there is no 'Law of Entropy'. There are the Laws of Thermodynamics, especially the second law, but it only applies in a Closed System.
Unfortunately, your conclusion illustrates how you clearly do not understand what you are talking about.
Explain how random process managed to create life thousands, if not millions of times over. The scientific fact is that mutations are simply almost never beneficial. The harmful mutations would have eliminated the species before the helpful ones took over. Yes, I know about the moths. Adapting a characteristic is hardly the same as inter-species evolution. Last time I checked, they were still moths.
Again, your ignorance is amazing. The scientific fact is that most mutations are neutral, and not harmful. You've been watching too many 50's scifi movies.
Explain how scientests have never been able to create life in a laboratory, even with our intricate knowledge of biological systems.
Just because we can't do it now does not mean we can't do it ever. In any case, it's irrelevant.
Explain why the earth isn't stuffed full of trans-species fossils. If you've got millions of years of animals evolving, unless you have animals with the lifespan of several hundred millinnea, they're going to be dying and leaving traces. Given that amount of time, such fossils should be everywhere. But they're not.
Actually they are. Every species is an intermediate form, unless the species goes extinct before another species evolves from it. There is also the fact, which you completely overlook in your ignorance, that there are many factors that make it difficult for an organsim, especially on land, to become fossilized. You might want to read up on Taphonomy, which deals with this topic.
Explain sexual reproduction. It's irreducibly complex and logically unnecessary. Why do we have it then? Just for pr0n?
Unfortunately, there is no evidence that any function, including reproduction, is irreducibly complex.
Explain humanity. We think, we reason, we talk, we invent. No other animal exhibits these characteristics. Mentally, we're the highest life form on the face of the planet. Why not physically then? Does evolution decide to enhance one characteristic and not another?
How do you know no other animals think? Other animals clearly communicate, and some animal invent. We merely do it better. What does highest life form mean? Best? Strongest? You need to explain your terms. Evolution does not 'enhance' characteristics. Characters that improve an organism's chances of reproducing, and surviving to reproduce, are the ones that will be selected for.
Remember, it's random. Go roll a die 400 times and tell me with a straight face that you're going to get a certain non-uniform distribution of numbers.
So, you mean that if I roll a die six times, I'll always get a sequence of 1 2 3 4 5 6? You clearly need to learn some Statistics as well. No matter the probability, you have to come up with a result.
It points to a higher intelligence. But of course, that can't be possible because it means that you might actually have to adopt a little humility and acknowledge that there is a power higher than yourself.
Actually, it just points out that humans are good at pattern matching, even when there really is no pattern. There is no compelling evidence for any deity, but then again, the burden of proof is on you.
So much easier to just not believe it, huh? Gets rid of a lot of those ugly responsibilities and moral obligations.
So much easier to just not think, huh? Gets rid of all those nagging contradictions and doubts about your medieval beliefs.
Evil Overlord X
Coming to a third world country near you
'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.
RE: A religeous man can still be a scientist quite easily really. It depends on HIS views...which may or may not be the same as the higher ups of the faith he practices
Re-read it AGAIN. I said a C-L-E-R-I-C. A cleric is not just a "religious man", he is someone in the employ of a religious organisation to ensure that the belief system of that particular system are put forth. Kinda contradicts the whole "do science with an impartial mind" thing. I don't see "make sure that it doesn't contradict Thessalonians 1:24 or Derek 9:16 or Surah 42:11" in the Scientific Method, anywhere.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
It absolutely must have been an x-files episode. We grabbed up every German scientist we could while the Russians did the same. Same thing with the japanese researchers involved in atrocities experimenting with biological warfare. As a matter of fact the experiments were kept secret until the 90's because the U.S. granted immunity from war crimes prosecution to the Japanese doctors in exchange for their data and helped covering up the human experiment. Instead of putting the ringleaders on trial, U.S. gave them stipends in order to have some germ warfare advantage over the communist Soviet Union.
Bullshit. I worked as a security guard at Ciba-Geigy(sp?) when I was in school. They had been doing research on pre-emergent insecticide/herbicides for years(>20), because of the promise that it would use a fraction of the chemicals and be more potent. Obviously not immediately promising, and yet the company persist. I hear this argument on /. constantly. Companies only work on stuff that will show on next quarters stock report.
I'll turn it around at you and say that most academics spend time chasing rainbows that have no application (obvious or otherwise), and that only occasionally does someone develope something that is useful. (Yes, this statement is also full of shit, but no more so than yours.)
All I said (essentially) is that a company has an obligation to its stockholders, and that obligation is to give them a return on their investment. Government is (supposed to be) a non-profit institution.
I'm a big supporter of government funded research because it has more leeway to take greater risks. I worked as a government researcher for 9 years. One of the products I worked on had potential for an actual product in maybe 20 years, and at the end of those 20 years, it still may not be a very commerically viable product, but still very useful from a humanitarian standpoint. We wanted to get support from companies, but they wouldn't touch it unless they could see a profit in 5 years. And those companies that did join us were constantly threatening to bail at every setback.
A few big companies can support large scale, long term research, but today's market doesn't encourage that- investors are pulling their money out of those types of companies (seen how good Lucent stock has done lately?) and putting them into companies with the potential of large short term growth.
Selfreplicating RNA (a system of catalytic RNA and template RNA) was one of the first steps on the way to the evolution of life, which, to the chagrin of theologists and churchgoers everywhere, was hardly a divine event. Stem cell research sounds great. If it does yield productive results, perhaps the government could offer incentives to donate embryos for a mother on welfare greater than those availble by having another child. :o
This is an incredibly clever decision, akin the famous afformentioned Supreme court decision.
R vrs. W split the abortion camps. By supporting abortion in the first trimester of preganacy, but not in the third, the Court split what was then a black and white issue into a variety of splinter camps. (Is it illlegal 100 days in? 150?)
Similiarly, this decision will give pause to either group...no longer will people be forced to take the dissenting sides. Instead, Bush's middle ground holds a tempting arena for anybody sitting on the fence: suddenly, the two former either/or camps are exteremists and Bush the moderate.
Not so dumb, eh?
I read most of her columns. She is about as funny as the flu. She does fill her columns with insults, lies, and rage. She goes a long way to justify stereotypes of stupid mean inbred Texans. She even puts insults in her book titles: so much for factual political reporting.
The real ethical dilemma isnt even around allowing the research. It is around what happens when cures are found using embryonic tissue. Who gets the proceeds from the sale of embryos? Could someone make a living selling their embryoes? What arrangements will fertility clinics make with the people who donate these embryos? Finally, how much is an embryo worth?
Any such life-risking is a conscious choice made by the mother. The fetus has no such choice. That is one of the reasons abortion is wrong.
First off, labelling views you disagree with as "fanatical" is disingenuous. As I mentioned above, the moral/social distinction is artifical. Our moral views drive our social views. Because I believe it is morally wrong to take advantage of others for personal gain, I believe abortion, embryonic stem cell research, murder, oppression, prejudice and capital punishment are all wrong.
Others have obviously arrived at different conclusions, but one cannot dismiss my views as incongruous.
A fetus is not dead. Neither is an embryo. Because of my beliefs I can't support research on cells from "already dead" embryos because those deaths were caused by an immoral act. The ends cannot justify the means.
Ah, but you have a choice in the matter. The embryo doesn't.
This is not solely a religious issue. Certainly many religious or spiritual people oppose this sort of research, but so do many atheists and agnostics. Would you label these people "religious extremists?"
Most reasonable religious types are perfectly willing to debate controversial issues and listen to various points of view. But you must also accept that at the end of the day they may disagree with your arguments. This does not make them unreasonable religious zealots.
No one can claim to "know" anything in a scientific sense with an issue like this. As has been noted several times, it is impossible to pinpoint scientifically exactly when "human life" begins. Any such decision is arbitrary. I believe life begins at conception. That is a matter of faith.
Next you'll be quoting the Faux News Channel as a source...
I don't think that it's just you. I think a lot of people are uninformed or misinformed about this issue. From what I've seen the press has done a very bad job on explaining the following:
-- Is the government outlawing research, not allowing any funding for it, or not allowing _government_ funding? I've heard several reporters say "outlaw."
-- Are these cells being created and destroyed just for research? Just destroyed? Are they even viable?
-- Why is the President making this decision? Isn't it a legislative decision?
I fear that sloppy reporting is really distorting public opinion on this issue.
By Godwin's Law, pro-research forces have therefore won. The President simply took note of this and applied political "wisdom".
Your friendly neighborhood nitpicker
First of all, the parent to this is a troll. Second, the excellent reason for having government funded research is to allow no-strings-attached publication of results. I work for a company that forces its employees to send all papers for publication through the legal department. Privately funded research has the spectre of censorship and active supression of results hanging over it.
She sat at the window watching the evening invade the avenue.
If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
You can check here.
"...if there is serious injury". So, Exodus does not consider causing a miscarriage serious injury? Exodus believes in "eye-for-and-eye". S why isn't the one who caused the miscarrige put to death?
Could it be that Exodus does not concider the fetus a person? I would have to say it conciders the fetus property, since the punishment is having to pay the father. Perhaps all those claiming that the Bible states that abortion is murder, should sit down and read it sometime.
-WintermuteIs Bush's "We will have a committee to oversee this, made up of doctors, scientists, bio-ethicists, and THEOLOGIANS" (I'm paraphrasing, emphasis mine - he DID say the word theologians EXPLICITLY)
Sorry, but clerics have NO place in science. Just as scientists have no place dictating religion.
I find it funny that he talks of "th' sanctutty uh hyumin life" - but executes the mentally retarded HAHAHAHAHAHA what a hypocrite.
No, you can't study the heavens! The Bible already tells us the world is flat! No! You can't dissect people to find out what their organ systems do - that's against the dignity of human life, excuse me... yes, that heretic... draw him and quarter him, flay the other one alive...
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
> "You Nazis have committed unspeakable acts of utter barbarity against the Jews! By the way, can we see your research files?"
If you can find an original Pernkopf Anatomy Atlas and compare it with versions currently in print, you'll see that this is exactly what happened.
Here's a more detailed article on the issue. It's a bioethicist's nightmare.
given this, then you must believe in the Buddhist version of the soul, which can be carried by any living vessel.
Are you serious?
This is different because these stem cells are derived from unfertilized cell clusters in a pre-embryonic state. They're not even full embryos yet - just a cell mass.
Here's a analogy for you: chicken eggs.
Is that egg you fry for breakfast being robbed of it's life potential? No! Why? Because it's unfertilized - it's just a cell mass.
Here's another one: the human female menstrual cycle.
Are billions of women accross the world murdering their unborn children because of their natural cycle? Of course not. The embryos are unfertilized - which makes them a useless cell mass. Therefore, the body expells them.
The irrationality of the mass public astonishes me on a daily basis.
Even if you don't believe that we have souls, then at least consider that every embryo has the potential to become a fully-developed human being. That in itself should be enough to give us all pause when considering this and other life issues.
So the ends justify the means? Please tell this to the unwitting victims of U.S. government nuclear radiation experiments.
I'm pretty sure Bush ain't Catholic. On top of that, though, the Pope is a political leader as well as a religious one. Consider how many Catholics out there listen to what he says.
You overlook the fact that there is no essential moral distinction that can be made between this research and the research conducted by the Nazis on the Jews. It is an utter defeat for Bush to say, "Well, those babies are dead anyway." It is not fundamentally different from saying this to Mengele:
"You Nazis have committed unspeakable acts of utter barbarity against the Jews! By the way, can we see your research files?"
Bush revealed himself as a political opportunist with respect to this issue. This was not a decision made on the basis of any firm moral principles he allegedly holds. If he's pro-life, he sold the store; if he's not, then why any restrictions at all?
Ahh, but you can. You have pigeonholed everything into a neat little extremist view. There are different views on morality. I personally believe that a being is alive (and to some degree sentient, despite the idiocy of certain animals and humans that I have observed) if it has a functioning central nervous system (and no, you wakko's, broccoli does not count). There are many who define 'alive' with an even more extreme definition. And looser. And just different.
To state that all people have the same moral code, and that all pro-lifer's have the same moral code, and are pro-life for the same reasons is beyond unreasonable, it is insane. Try not to apply your personal beliefs to entire movements.
-CrackElf
Oh, yes, if you care about life so much, try paying attention to the abandoned and starving children that are out here now, with plenty pain and suffering instead of worrying about those that are not even born yet. How many have you taken in? Put your passion where it belongs. Help the children. Worry about the embryos once all of the ones that have already popped out are taken care of.
"Blake is an idealist, Jenna. He cannot afford to think." - Kerr Avon, Star One, Blakes 7
Oh, another campaign promise broken?
It's unheard of! This man has taken Integrity(tm) and Civility(tm) away from the White House. Impeach the bastard, quick, before he gets to one of the interns!
You're preaching to the converted, my friend. :)
grep -ri 'should work'
I'm sure that if I lost a child during gestation, it would be emotionally tough, but would not make me stupid enough to start believing that a 5-7 day old blastula, with a few dozen cells in it, is a person. You are seriously confused if you think this. It seems the more people believe things that are out-and-out nonsense, the more smug they are about their "morality". Science was never "sure" that the earth was flat. This may have been a common belief in the 15th century but it was not a framework that would be recognizable today as science. You are confusing science with dogma, like the right winger that you claim to be.
The issue isn't about stem cells as much as where they come from. You say that 4 or 5 cells do not constitute life or whatever. That is not the issue. The issue is that there is only one place to get fetal stem cells....a fetus. Because of the controversy surrounding that, they want to curtail the research of fetal stem cells.
I find it hilarious that you took, from TalkOrigins, a user-posted calculation that they debunked, and not the debunking, which is here:
;)
;)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob.html
That's roughly the equivalent of looking at an argument on why Phrenology is pseudoscience, and using the claims of phreneology as fact
"Your claim essentially states that all life on the planet is all the same species with radically different traits. I'd be hard-pressed to say I'm the same species as a humming bird, or a tiger."
Species is a word, silly. I'm not claiming we're all the same species. Once we become different enough, we're a different genus. One we're different enough from that, we're a different family. Then an order. Then a class. Then a phylum. Then a kingdom. They're arbitrary lines set by humans. Quit being silly
"Yes, features change. Intra-species evolution. Species do not. I have brown hair, my mom has blond. Different genes. Hardly evolution. Under
evolution, yes, those genes would have to become a part of our DNA, but they aren't evolution! Different features != evolution!"
LAF!!!!!!!!!! That's hilarious. You're referring to picking from existing genes. That has nothing to do with this argument. What you need to be disproving if you want to have any weight at all is *mutation*.
"Evolving a facial feature is quite different from say, evolving legs instead of fins. "
The mudpuppy is a fish without lungs that goes on the land, and the ceoclanth (sp) has almost legs with no lungs. And then there is the African Lungfish, the floridian walking catfish,...
Simple legs used in many of these animals are little more than fins. There is a steady progression of more complicated fin-legs, up to normal legs, *still in existance* in the world (rememebr, a trait only dissapears if there's a disadvantage to having it any more - a fully developed leg is only important if you plan to spent a significant amount of time on land - many semi-legged fish use their legs to walk across dry land to get to new ponds).
Mutations are very rarely beneficial to adding new alleles to the gene pool.
Quite true. In fact, a little over 99% of mutations are harmful. Now, pull up your favorite programming language, create an array of numbers, and have it go, for 100,000 rounds, changing the number lower 99.5% of the time, and higher 0.5% of the time. Then, have the highest numbered ones copy themselves over and replace the lowest numbered ones. You'll be (un)pleasantly surprised.
I was also pleasantly surprised to notice that you didn't even cover the fact that many species have become incapable of breeding with certain groups, in laboratory condictions, simply by being separated from each other (naturally, they can still breed with the group they were separated into). Its a perfectly repeatable experiement, every single time.
-= rei =-
*Kid Rock runs for Senate* Democrats: We must run Kid Scissors.
I think the pro-stem cell advocates are knocking at the wrong door for research money.
I wonder why they're not going to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation with its US$17 billion in available funds to get the grant money to create new stem cells without having to be on the Federal dole? After all, Bill Gates has expressed MAJOR interest in advances in medicine, and the Gates Foundation could easily dole out US$2 billion to keep researchers going for at least a decade in this field.
I object to killing human beings. It's really very simple. It doesn't matter what stage of development that person is in.
Stem cell research does not use any tissue from human fetuses.
This is not true. Some stem cell research does not use any tissue from human fetuses. There is stem cell research that uses stem cells from blastocysts, there is some that uses stem cells from embryos, there is some research that uses cells from fetuses, and still some that uses placental stem cells.
Bush's decision is in no way acceptable
I agree, but for different reasons. Federal funds should NOT be used for any of this research.
The president wants to please the public, but deep down he knows what's good for the country as a whole, and handicapping American scientists relative to the rest of the world is not it.
You mean, unlike the way that German scientists were not handicapped 60 years ago? I say this to illustrate a point. Many people see this type of research as orwellian, to control the cells of an individual in order to limit his/her position in life. To limit the scope of one individual to that of a test subject who will never have a choice as to whether or not to take part.
As far as "creating life", we are a long way off from that. We won't be able to create life until we can build DNA, RNA, and/or amino acid chains from carbon and water with no help from any natural process.
-You can cry, but you'll still die. There'll be no tears in the end.
While there are hypocrites in every endeavor, I'd like to point out that _if_ life begins that conception, then it is non-negotiable whether it is acceptable to experiment on fetuses. If the fetus represents human life then it is just as horrific to experiment on them (or other body parts) as it was [1 of 2 Nazi references].
_Life_ is a poor word to describe what you mean to say. A mosquito is alive. A brain-dead human can be kept alive by a machine. Besides that, you assume that because it is/will be a human being that it's wrong to not provide it with basic right to life we afford ourselves. I disagree. The right of a creature to live should be determined by how developed the creature's mind is. I've always wondered: Why do we find it abhorrent to kill a human fetus with a fraction of the brain cells that a human adult has, but consider it perfectly acceptable to shoot a full grown deer? Not for the betterment of others as we might kill a human fetus to procure stem cells -- but for sport, no less! Granted, it's an arbitrary decision at what point in development any particular species should be granted protection from the less caring members of our society, but the mere requirement that a creature have human DNA is simply not enough and arguably very wrong!
[Note: I'm not playing devil's advocate. I believe that parents should have the legal right to end the life of an infant, under controlled conditions in a hospital, for days after it is born. This is something I would never do myself.]
P.S. If you'd like to talk about why the the Judeo/Christian God is a myth, please contact me at marble@centurytel dot net.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
It assumes that human life has instrumental value, but not intrinsic value.
In other words, your value as a human has to do with what you are capable of doing. Thus, those who are disabled in any way become of less worth than the whole. Is that where you want to go?
------ "Darn floor. Big bite." (Koko the gorilla's best attempt at explaining the experience of an earthquake.)
'Well, I didn't expect a sort of Spanish Inquisition!'
'Noone expects the Spanish Inquisition- Our cheif element is surprise!'
good post
Except in Texas the smelly people speak spanish instead of french.
Now this is really pathetic. Five posts into the discussion (browsing at +1) and you had to sink to level of making cheap shots at someone's religious convictions. Is that the extent of your intelect? If so, you're pathetic.
The argument around stem cell research is fundamentally based on the question of when life begins. To illustrate, consider this: If there were a type of cell only found in 8 year olds, that held amazing promise is curing terrible diseases, but extracting them killed the child, would we extract them? Clearly not because the price of the cure is too high because 8 year olds are considered human by everybody.
However, not everybody agrees on the question of whether or not fetuses are human. Now, they either are, or they are not. Regardless of what you or I think, one position is correct and the other false.
There is no easy resolution on the horizon, so what do we do? We try to come up with a solution that a large majority can agree on. The President's decision is a good one because it allows stem cell research to some degree, but it can be accepted by pro-lifers, because it does not encourage abortion.
People need to give up the idea that you can get everything you want on a polarized subject.
Now for an offtopic discussion around abortion...
The question of when something becomes human is essentially the same as the fallacy of the beard. For those of you who don't know, the fallacy of the beard is like this. One whisker is not a beard, neither is two. So how may whiskers are needed? 10,000? What about 9,995?
To carry this over to abortion: Conception seems counter-intuitive for the beginning of human life, but birth is equally so. (I mean, what changed between 5 seconds after my birth and 5 seconds before).
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
Oh please, do yourself a favor, get off the ethics issue. Believe whatever you want, I don't care that you believe we shouldn't do this. This is beside the point. The problem is, you are argueing based on Ethics and HELLO, not a single person here is going to have their mind changed over an ethical arguement. If you are going to argue against it, find a scientific reason not "they are living humans with a soul and should not be killed." arguement. No one with a brain is going to listen. End of story.
As you might've noticed by this post, I don't use the preview button.
Just because a bunch of people believe or do something stupid, doesn't make it any less stupid.
"A tumor is "living human tissue" yet we have no trouble killing those cells.
This is not even relevant to the discussion."
Actually, it is.
They're human cells. If what you object to is killing human cells, then you should object to killing a tumor. If what you object to is destrying a unique combination of DNA, then you shuold object to yourself existing, as you're doing that simply by breathing, let alone eating animals and plants.
If you don't object to either of those situations individually, then why do you combine them both and then suddenly object to them, strong enough to force your decisions on others?
In reality, the tragedy in killing a human is destroying a complex consciousness.
-= rei =-
*Kid Rock runs for Senate* Democrats: We must run Kid Scissors.
> For example, note that the Universe exhibits
> intelligent design. Explain how you can get
> complex life and thought from time + chance. The
> law of entropy states otherwise
"Violating entropy" is an old saw shot down by physicists time and again. "Overall entropy" says nothing about local entropy. To see another violation of entropy in exactly the same manner as life, take a look at your air conditioner. And no, that an AC unit is "intelligently designed" doesn't make the principal invalid.
> Why do we have [sexual reproduction] then? Just for pr0n?
Thank goodness! Moreover, if God were creating the universe, why make a male and a female? Why not an androgynous, peaceful, asexual society where men won't rage around fighting natural temptation to be the alpha male, leaving trails of orphans everywhere. Good one, God.
(Would Trout pr0n consist of masturbating to pictures of laid eggs? Discuss.)
Evolution is so powerful that if God were to create the universe as-is, we know enough that evolution would commence immediately on the then-existing species. God would have to take an active role in stopping evolution (which would then be detectable by science, BTW.)
Anyway, evolution is not at odds with religion except in the more fundamental sects (including TV preachers.) The older religions simply throw up their hands and say evolution is how God guided development. No more house-arrests for Galileo for them. If the Bible contradicts science, all the worse for the Bibie. (If you want to continue to believe in it, you must ascribe ever-larger portions to being allegory rather than actual description.)
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
Which would argue for making the creation and subsequent abandonment of an embryo/fetus/baby a crime, would it not? That's the trouble with trying to pinpoint when a human becomes a human with the rights of protection that an adult has. Once your definition strays into x time after conception, you relegate those groups of cells that exist prior to your definition as just property.
Many leading stem cell researchers in the US have only heard of a dozen or so cell lines. Here's an article. The only person in it who accepted the 60 figure is a "senior Bush administration official" who wasn't willing to give their name.
Not a theory, just an expression. I believe in a soul. Upon conception, the soul comes alive. Whether the body is all there or not, the soul exists. Call it mysticism, or call the soul a natural occurance from the combining of an egg and sperm -- regardless, the life begins there.
"Wasting" eggs and sperms isn't a problem. Why not? They aren't human life. I suppose you could call them "potential life", but only in the same sense that eggs, milk, and cheese are "potential omlette". However, once you put all those ingredients in a pan, you have an omlette.
(Please don't insult my intelligence or call yours into question by claiming that the cooking process makes the omlette complete, and thus a human isn't human until it's "cooked" in the womb. If you're a native English speaker of reasonable intelligence, you can follow my (admittedly) limited analogy.)
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
actually he's a puppet.
Do you consider children from out-of-country to be less deserving of parents or lesser individuals?
You are imposing an artificial barrier. There is nothing invalid about parents of one or two ethnic backgrounds raising a child of a second or third.
The usual reasoning for such legislation is that the child will not receive the proper education in some particular culture. This is very unfortunate. If such education is desired then perhaps the local community can offer programs for children adaopted by parents of another culture or perhaps the community can find parents of the same ethnicity to adopt the child.
Again, such laws impose artificial barriers. We're all human beings!
So children can be "too old" for adoption? That is sad.
Yes, these are certainly difficult cases. Finding parents able and willing to care for such children is extremely hard. I don't have a good solution to this except to encourage loving care by those who can provide it, be they private families, government programs or religious organizations.
Is there anything to justify the stigmatizing of all foster children other than the mental and physical anguish some of these children go through? I would hope that not all foster children are difficult cases.
Then regulations have to change.
You left at least one problem off your list: often it is difficult for adoptive parents to feel secure with their child as there are many cases where the biological parents later contest the adoption. Grace periods already exist and it is probably time that these be more strictly enforced for the sanity of the adoptive parents.
I personally believe that a being is alive (and to some degree sentient, despite the idiocy of certain animals and humans that I have observed) if it has a functioning central nervous system (and no, you wakko's, broccoli does not count). The poster does not wish, I hope, to argue that broccoli (or plants in general) are not alive, but that killing them invokes no moral taboo.
Bush's "reasoning"
Life is sacred
Life begins at conception
Destroying a life to save lives is wrong
Embryonic Stem Cell research is promising
Embryonic Stem cell harvesting destroys life
Some lives have been destroyed already
Destroying those lives was wrong
Stem Cell Lines were derived from those lives
We can't bring back those lives
So it's ok to use those stem cell lines
If you are against destroying embryos, you should be against using these stem cells. If you support this research, you should support developing new stem cell lines.
I think this will be a successful political move on Bush's part, but it demonstrates that he is just as political as Clinton was(something Bush criticized).
For the record, I support stem cell research, using stem cells from embryos that are a by-product of fertility therapies. I think it is abhorrent to create embryos solely for stem cell research.
My other sig is extremely clever...
While there are hypocrites in every endeavor, I'd like to point out that _if_ life begins that conception, then it is non-negotiable whether it is acceptable to experiment on fetuses.
The main problem with this viewpoint is that animals are life as well, yet even most pro-lifers don't have a problem with us experimenting on animals.
Of course you may say, "but it is _human_ life," but this is also questionable. Does a human need a heartbeat? Does a human life need a brain?
The embryos involved in this research are, for all practical purposes, brain dead. They are vegetables. They have no heartbeat, no heart, and no internal organs whatsoever.
A fetus with a heartbeat and brain is quite another matter. Moreover, a fetus that can survive outside the womb, even with advanced technology, is also a very different matter.
But an embryo will not turn into a person without implantion into a womb. It is a potential life only if you take great effort. You can't just walk down the street implanting embryos into women.
On the other hand, abortion is a change in the current situation. A pregnant woman left alone will bring a human life into the world. An early embryo left alone will not.
Hey, just come over to the UK.....only a few restricitions on stem cell work over here.....one of the leading Lords is Robert Winston (he's also a specialist in reproductive medicine), and he can't stop talking about the potential of stem cells.
:) Reverse brain-draining...
Seeing as you've all been stealing our top academics for years now, I guess we thought it was time we got our own back on y'all
All your geneticists are belong to us! (lame but had to be done)
-Nano.
I'll have to jump into the discussion here. I believe that the power to choose is one of the most fundamental principles of humanity, and should not be taken from anybody. However, the power to choose does not necessarily imply the power to right to choose indiscriminately. Choices have consequences, good or bad. If you cannot live with the consequences of one choice, the responsible thing to do is to choose an alternative. In short, I think the woman has the right to choose in the beginning, but that does not absolve her (or her partner) of responsibility for their actions. If pregnancy is a choice you and your partner cannot live with, then DON'T HAVE SEX. It is reckless and irresponsible to make a human life, even in its earliest stages of development, bear the consequences of your irresponsible decisions. Then, you will argue, what about victims of rape? The victim of rape never made a choice to have sex, so she cannot be held responsible for its consequences. In that case I agree with you that it is solely her decision what to do with the pregnancy. But I do not think that rape victims form a bulk of the cases of abortion. I think the largest percentage of abortions is people seeking to avoid the natural consequence of an action (in this case, unwanted pregnancy as a result of illicit sex)
Abortion wouldn't be nearly as big an issue (nor would AIDS and many other problems) as it is if people could just learn to keep it in their pants. It's not that difficult. Yes, it takes some effort, but it can be done (I did not have sex until I got married, at which point my wife and I were both prepared to live with the consequences of sex, which at that point were quite positive). If you think you can't, then you've already made your choice, and by making the choice, you have also chosen the consequences.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
The DP is scripturally justified and it pleases the LORD. Abortion does not, nor does vegetarianism.
I thought he was completely stupid... By at least allowing research on these 60 (which is a bit weird... they're already dead so go ahead... tell a vegetarian the same and he'll laugh at you right in the face) he makes up a little for his total nonsense on all other subjects (star-wars, environment, death-penalty)... or maybe he made a mistake (in his own point of view) and it turns out well for the rest of the world... Let him make some more mistakes... PLEASE
Nice try.
While I want everyone to have the right to choose Linux, I don't believe it's the best choice for everyone. For some, OS X or *BSD would be a better choice.
By you're reasoning, I'm not pro-Linux. But I am.
Glad we laid that to rest.
"...given the number of children waiting for adoption"
It's time to blast this myth once and for all; the idea that there are plenty of children 'waiting for adoption', and that this is some easy alternative to cloning / surrogacy / whatever is dead wrong.
Why do you think so many people go out-of-country to adopt children? For the following reasons:
1. The majority of adopting parents are white in the US; however, the available pool of white children is relatively low (less than 20%). Other ethnic groups, (native americans, for instance) have successfully put legislation in place to restrict cross-ethnic adoption, or have called for such legislation.
2. More than half of the "available" pool of children waiting for adoption in the US are over the age of 5; 20-40% (depending on the survey used) have mental, physical, or emotional problems that require extra care. 30% have been in foster care programs for 3 years or more.
3. In many states, the costs of sucessful adoption can be double or triple the costs of artficial methods of pregnancy.
So far as I understand it, it doesn't really matter who owns the cells. Since they're self-reproducing, the second any company or university sells a single live cell the supply of that line is irrevocably and permanently unrestricted, as the people too whom they sold the cell can now grow and cell more.
Kinda like open source/Free Software, in a way -- once it's out there, there's no putting the cat back in the bag.
"Evil company X is threatening to restrict our rights! Let's all get together to stop--OOOH! SHINEY!!!" -- AC
yes let's use Mr.Phil for some research... try and find out why the religious rightwing is overwhelmingly and willfully ignorant and revisionist.
I've heard stories from a couple of sources about rich people who 'hire' other people with similar blood typing and genetic makeup to be 'live donors'. The idea is that if there is ever an emergency need for a heart or some other critical organ these people give their's up in return for some massive payback to be made to their families. Personally I don't find idea of growing 'cloned' replacments nearly as ethically repulsive.
I just found an article on CNN that almost touched on the point. It seems there is a National Registry of Stem Cell Lines being proposed. However, it seems it will be nothing but a registry -- a way for people wanting to do research to find cells they can use and still use federal funds. It seems the ownership is still in the hands of those who did the work to get the cells. While licensing was not mentioned, I'm guesisng my original fears are still justified.
Your reply:
Can you point me to anything validating that?
Sorry, there's no validation. If you're going to deliberately ignore things, there's no way to validate anything for you. Wait; I'll write it in the next edition of the Bible and you'll agree to it. Right?
Really? Then why have we never witnessed inter-species evolution?
There's a load of examples. Again, you're just ignoring selectively what does not fit your world view. Don't worry about it. You're wrong, and you'll just be wrong. Hey. Not everyone can be right.
We have never "measured" evolution. We hypothesize about it. It's as much a religion as Christianity.
Again, we've only measured it in such a way that you simply deliberately ignore and refuse to see. We've measured the time scale and the rate of change and we've quantified the mechanism and we've counted billions of bones. But that's OK. Really, I gave up on trying to convince fundies a long time ago. I could drag you outside and bolt your head into a rig and force you to look at the sky and I swear you'd insist the sky was green if I said evolution predicted it would be blue. You don't understand the basics of the scientific method, are not prepared to have your pleasant world view challenged or disrupted, and are impervious to logical persuasion. Don't worry about it. Just bip along through your life and believe that you're right. It's all subjective anyway, right?
Or public education, or national defense, or the police, or civil rights, or ...
"The debunking makes some rather amazing claims in and of itself, and as such, can hardly be billed as debunking. It argues that the first living things are much, much simpler than modern day simple organisms. While I see the logic in this hypothesis, the hole in it lies in that were such the case, these organisms should still be around today, and in great abundance as they would not only have to have the ability to replicate quickly in order to survive, but in time, they would have evolved even faster methods of replication. An argument saying that such organisms will have long dies out is in and of itself just plain silly. If they could spontaneously generate once (Or however many times it took), they could do it again."
;) 73% of north american large mammals died when "natives" moved in, 85% of australian, 100% of madagascar's...
;) If a species can get into an unoccupied niche or a niche it can take over, that's a plus for it - it'll survive there, even if something overtakes its old niche. Its invalid logic that you used.
:)
;)
Simple organisms don't survive for the same reasons that they don't in AE simulations (which we use to model bacterial and viral populations, btw, with astoundingly similar results). A simple organism cannot gather energy nearly as efficient. It cannot break down near as many compounds. It can't reproduce as efficiently. It can't adapt very quickly. It would be at the bottom of the "ability to compete" spectrum. The exact same thing happens in AE runs.
"To my knowledge (And please let me know if there are counterexamples), there are no self-replicating, living molecules or strands of RNA. If they could survive to evolve, they should still be around."
The whole point in evolution is that they're *not* still around. The whole population either changes or diverges - stagnation is a killer, because as soon as something finds a good way to kill you, your entire species gets wiped out. The shorter the generation time, the more swift the changes are. Bacterial and viral changes are incredibly rapid. Larger organisms, like people, have slow enough adaptation speeds that they have to have an adaptable immune system to pose a chance.
And, yes, there are replicating, individual molecules. They're called prions; a good example is Mad Cow disease. They come into existance every so often, but don't usually last for too long (a few hundred years at best) before they're adapted against, since they can't handle change, being as simple as they are.
". Does this mean that older organisms have disappeared? If this is so, why is it that there are organisms that are evolutionally inferior to other organisms?"
Give an example. What you may consider "evolutionarily inferior" may have quite a niche. For example, lemmings get killed by the thousands in their stampedes - however, its the smarter and stronger lemmings who survive the stampedes. They have no problem getting food and breeding in their current environment, and stampedes are a good way to get rid of those consuming food that are worse on the gene pool. If predation ever became more strict, they'd either, over the course of a few hundred to a few thousand years, weed out the behaviors that led to stampedes, or die off like the majority of species in history have.
There are species that are "evolutionarily inferior" in their particular environment. They're known as extinctions. Many things are evolutionarily inferior to us
"If a fish could survive in the ocean, there's no reason why it would need to leave the ocean, and therefore, no need to develop such traits."
By that logic, humans would only exist in one small location instead of inventing clothing, water containers, and whatever else is needed to go into different environments
"If a host body of water were to dry up, the fish would die, lacking the capability to move to another pond because before such circumstances,
there was no reason for the mutation - it would have caused drag in the water and been unnecessary - and when the need develops, they don't have the capability to survive it. They die. This mutation relies on the fact that their genes knew that 300 generations down the road their ancestors would have to walk to another pond, even though original didn't need and would never need the legs to survive. I'm not sure that even the foremost evolutionists could argue that successfully."
You are correct in understanding that there needs to be a linear adaptation path (for example, computer simulations have shown that there is a linear adaptation path from having an eyespot to having a eye with a lens, cornea, etc... but there is no path to having two lenses, to allow you to zoom in (that's why no animals have such a feature)). What your mistake in this situation is a failure to see the path
The earliest species to live on land were not legged animals, but lunged animals. In many parts of the world, rivers and streams dry up regularly. Often, its for a short while. Sometimes, its for a long time. The ability to live without water for longer and longer periods of time allows such an animal to survive in more and more seasonal niches (being the only such animal to survive there, as was mentioned before, they'd have no competition). Most such areas don't go from "wet" to "dry" instantly - the river gets muddier and muddier, eventually drying up. Naturally, the ability to move on mud when it gets dry is a huge advantage in those niches; flopping fins will get you a little bit of movement. The more solid the bony parts in the fins and the more muscle attached to themn, the better you can move. Eventually, this allows an animal to move into lakes that were completely inland. By this time, the animal is more amphibian-like than fish-like. (if you'll remember, amphibians start out as small, very fishlike organisms, which, once they reach a certain point, have undeveloped fin/legs start developing into legs, and their undeveloped lungs start to develop, while their gills atrophy).
I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying with your script, your wording is very unclear. "multiply the remaining elements by the number of offspring they have". What??
Yes, my example was a simplified situation, but it was a Proof Of Concept situation, not a general evolution system. You stated that most mutations are harmful. I agreed, wholeheartedly. I then showed that, however, if the few that do better are the ones that survive and end up replacing, in the niche, the poorest surviving elements, the overall species still gets better, thus refuting the validity of a claim that most mutations being bad means the species dies out.
Please provide a clearer explanation of your script and what you were trying to show with it
-= rei =-
*Kid Rock runs for Senate* Democrats: We must run Kid Scissors.
> "...it seems utterly selfish and inhumane given the number of children
> waiting for adoption. It's the hight of narcissism on the part of these parents."
Even if you were right about the number of children available for adoption (see the other reply by AC), by this line of reasoning, anyone having a child by biological means is a narcissist.
Mostly, I find that the people most opposed to cloning as a method of having children are people who have no difficulties procreating normally, and I find that telling. When you can tell me the difference between wanting to make a child by cloning and wanting to make a child by traditional sex, I'll consider your argument more seriously. Until then, I can only consider it biased based on biological functionality.
Virg
is nothing. So a year of research to cure diseases is worth a quarter of a stealth bomber? Maybe we should reconsider the allocation of funds.
(ignore, oh ye who have been scrolling through posts, since I've stated this on other threads as well).
Let me ask you.
1. Do you find killing human cells, or groups of human cells atrocious?
Of course not! Your cells are dying all the time. People don't have a second thought about getting them removed in surgery. Etc.
2. Do you find killing a unique combination of DNA, or a unique organism, atrocious?
Of course not! You do this just by walking, just by breathing. Every time you eat, you're causing the destruction of unique organisms - if you're not a vegetarian, including animals.
So, why would you take these two "I don't cares", and combine them into "I care enough to force my opinions on others!"?
In reality, what makes killing a human a tragedy is destroying a complex, unique consciousness.
A few-week old embryo has *no* consciousness. They don't even have neurons, let alone synapses, let alone complex synapses, let alone human-level synaptic complexity.
-= rei =-
*Kid Rock runs for Senate* Democrats: We must run Kid Scissors.
that president Bush decided to go on TV from vacation? I'm assuming this is just a response to the people who are angry that he has spent 42% of his time on vacation since being president. There's no better way to look busy than addressing the prime-time american viewers from your vacation spot. ahh, America
An analogy: ... a little fast forward and see, it regenerates. Apples forever and ever.
An apple is something that can regenerate. You can plant the seeds in the ground, wait for the tree to grow zzzip
But after a while you find out that you didn't really want apple pie, you hate the taste, you'd rather have a pear pie. No way to get a pear from your apple tree.
Or, you're not the best gardener in the world (like me) and your first attempts at growing the apple tree don't really work, so you need more apples as starting material.
Hm, is that understandable or did I mess up my analogy? ;)
Bush was clearly against stem cell research when his campaign began. If was going to outright ban all funding, he would have done so with no hesitation. The fact that he was going consider it, (should have) lead everyone to expect a compromise.
The issue that is being largely overlooked, however, is that he has opened up a serious loophole through which million dollar attorneys can squeeze further funding from the US government.
Do what you believe right, as long as you do not prevent others from doing the same.
What does the number of cells have to do with the value of a life? You and I have about 6 trillion cells in our bodies, and a Hereford cow has about 30 trillion. Are you going to sit there and argue that the cow's life is therefore 5 times more valuable than your own?
And of those who believe that human beings have value while in the "embryo" stage of development, very few believe that sperm cells and unfertilized eggs have any special value. Hardcore Catholics do, I guess. Seems pretty silly to me. The rest of us draw a distinction.
for the religious right wingers who's life is in gods hands, i hope you don't ruin it for people who believe in god but believe in humans and science as well.
If there is an ethical right and wrong on this issue, the arguments must be framed to appeal to religious and non-religious people alike. I'm an atheist, and very much opposed to destroying embryos to extract stem cells. See my other post.
My question is, why do the non supporters feel this is a win? The government didn't stop these companies from getting NEW STEM CELLS, they just stopped the funding on that spcific process.
Bush has no control over how private research dollars are spent -- only over federal research dollars. He did everything he could to prevent additional embryos from being destroyed. A good call.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Why do you use a qualification here? Are only certain forms of human life valid?
A miscarriage is a natural occurrence. A miscarriage caused by unnatural act is punishable.
Yes, this is unfortunate.
This is not even relevant to the discussion.
You sure about that? Our entire society is based around those "thousands of years old religious ideas." I could just as easily say, "thousands, hundreds or tens of years old scientific ideas have been continuously proved wrong." But that would set up an unnatural conflict between religion and science.
yeah...
go republican diehard.
you rule.
How perfectly goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure. - Charles Crumb
So, she is saying we should just let "God" handle everything. God will give us Electricity and Nuclear Bombs and Space Ships, and X-Boxes when he deems necessary. God will research the artificial heart and magically and surgically implant it into another human being. God will contact Aliens for us and invent the computer, the car, and the TV. God will give us food and prevent us from ever getting sick.
Grow up people. If we don't do things ourselves, they'll never get done. We don't want to go back in the dark ages. We are better off now then we've ever been.
Just because a bunch of people believe or do something stupid, doesn't make it any less stupid.
Geron (GERN) owns 5 of them according to a statement by them today. Actually they were very surprised to hear that 60 stem cell lines exist which qualify for the NIH guidelines for their research. My guess would be that the 60 number is incorrect and in reality is closer to 20.
There is another (private) company in Australia which owns several as well. I cannot recall the name off the top of my head.
On the same note, Geron owns most (maybe all) of the patents associated with embryonic stem cells (not adult stem cells). Their web site is http://www.geron.com Geron is generally considered to be the dominant company as far as embryonic stem cells are concerned.
As far as the money issue goes, Geron nor any other private company will see much benefit from it. The primary benefit to companies in the field will be that federal funding will increase the number of people doing research in the field, which will give the companies access to a larger group of talent going foward.
I own stock in Geron.
I was listening to NPR in the car about 1/2 hour ago. The scientist being interviewed said this winds up being a ban on future research. This is because many of the 60 lines are in Europe. He said we should not expect to get access to them. Of the 5 to 10 lines that are available here he said that Mr. Bush got it wrong when he said that these lines could be extended on and on. He said that after a finite number of extensions, they are worthless. Lastly, he said that data gathered on stem-cells from one ethnic group may have limited applicability to other ethnic groups. He said that after 9 months or so, our research will pretty much be shut down. Personally, I can not see how Bush, an anti-choicer, can be in favor this since he believes that life begins at conception. But then there's not much loot to be made by allowing women access to safe abortions. But there's tons of potential booty here. And I've never known a Republican to let their "ethics" get in the way of that.
I want to be alone with the sandwich
I love how the initial post mentions the potential of the stem cell research. You obviously did not watch the speach. One main reason Bush refused to expand it was due to the "potential" we were all promised from the fetal tissue research. That has been going on for nine years, with the funding of infanticide to keep it afloat. What have we seen from this? Absolutely nothing!
I take you don't think tax cut was smart...
Hell, I am sure you would be just happy with Gore and his new slew of taxes (guaranteed NO democrat since Kennedy failed to substantially increase taxes.)
It's an excecutive order untill Congress takes over and changes the deciesion, which the Democratic controlled senate already said they would try to change this "ban"
Well, you remember how Reagan was lambasted and it was said that he slept through most of his 2 terms.
All of a sudden, *poof* no more USSR
He is most likely much smarter than anyone gives him credit for after listening to that down south twang in his voice.
You should add that some Greeks tried to show that the earth moved around the sun, but since they couldn't detect parallax (sp) motion in the stars, they rejected that theory.
Surfing the net and other cliches...
(Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
A question of morality. Exactly my point: if it is doubtful whether or not obtaining certain "resources" is morally acceptable, any research to profit on those would be morally doubtful too.
I think your analogy is a little far-fetched. Pharmaceutical companies aren't actually starving, and eating and getting drunk are not necessary stages in a process. But once you asked, if you know the beggar to have some money, yes, I think you shouldn't give him food, except for something you will dispose of anyway.
I agree with you that his decision was a wise one, just that I think it was too ambiguous.
Mmmmmmm, beeeeer.....
At one time, you passed through the stage of development known as "embryo."
Regardless of whether someone shot you yesterday, or destroyed you as an embryo to harvest your stem cells -- would you not be equally dead today?
I'm 31 years old. Personally, I would prefer being shot today to having been destroyed as an embryo: at least I got to have 31 good years.
So, it seems to me that GWB was true to his anti-abortion views while at the same time recognizing that the important thing was to prevent future 'harvesting' of embryos.
The Nazis performed a lot of barbaric research on the Jews (and others) during WWII, producing a lot of useful data. Among the medical and scientific community, for 55+ years, there's been an on-going debate about whether it's right to use that data, considering the source it came from. A prevelent side of the argument is "Yes, because it allows us to produce some good from these horrible experiments" -- it isn't "The end justifies the means," as much as "It's already happened, what is our response?"
Similarly, the President feels that destroying these embryos, particularly to perform research on them, is wrong. However, for the ones that have already been destroyed and have already produced lines of stem cells, what do we do? He's recognized that the end does not justify the means by deciding against funding any more harvesting. But, then the question is "What do we do with the ones we have now?" I think GWB's response to that is "It's better to do good than to do nothing."
Indeed! We shouldn't allow people's thoughts (including religion) to affect how they vote and interact with people! Kill the heritics! Minority rule!
I will no longer take you seriously. You may now do the same to me.
Hugs and kisses,
AC
I can't see how supporting research on already-obtained cells differs in practice from funding resarch for stem cell farming. If there is more money available for a given stage in a process, wouldn't some of the money that would be originally employed in that stage be diverted to research in other stages now much more in need?
Am I missing something fundamental or is this really just GWB hedging against criticism?
Go bash a rock against your skull. The state you experience thereafter will be unconsciousness. When you open your eyes again, are aware, and can in some fashion interpret your surroundings, you have re-achieved consciousness.
I've had my consciousness pulled out from under me just once, when I had my very first hypoglycemic "fit." I know the difference. It's not hard to define at all. And I'm pretty sure I know what being dead will be like, too.
The hardcore left, the hardcore right... A hyper-oppinionated and verbose bunch to be sure. But I'll bet you a dollar that none of them touches this question.
The attitude that the government owes us and that if they don't shovel out the cash, we're being done wrong is one of the most potent and ugly poisons affecting society today (Not just American society, mind you.) The only other thing that comes close is cable TV. (Well, maybe Brittany Spears fits in there somewhere... You be the judge.)
This space intentionally left blank
The e. coli is hitting the fan, and he just ducked. The man wants to be re-elected, so he needs to keep his political white robes clean.
So, in that context, it's the best decision he could have made, evading as much of the ethical issues as possible.
I can see the fnords!
I have to second that! That is the most beautiful argument I've heard in favor of allowing this type of research. Something that everyone really needs to be aware of when they try to argue that you are a human being from the moment of conception.
A good question for those who believe in such things (I don't), is when is 'soul' imbued into the embryo? It obviously can't be there at any time when the cells can split apart into multiple viable embryos. The next stage the cells reach is where they begin to differentiate between fetal and placental tissue. So maybe then? I believe is possible to split into twins after the embryo goes down that road.
There are a couple of alternatives though. Maybe there is a soul from conception but then when the cell(s) split off on their own, a new soul is immediately created. Or.. every cell has its own little soul and the work collectively to become the big human soul. Yeah, that's the ticket - micro-souls that join together to become a macro-soul. Yeah! That's the ticket! Now I just have form a religion based around that theory and I'll have followers as far as the eye can see! Moohahahah!
if this is truely your beliefe I don't see why stem cell research is the issue.
why don't you spend your time and energy on stoping the fertility clinics creating this surpluss of (proto)human tissue.
I am not calling for violence but when was the last time you heard of some cracked out religious zelot bombing a fertility clinic. if you beleave that allowing these fetusis to die is so wrong why aren't you busy making a bigger stink about there petri dish creation that will statisticly end in death.
don't spend your time trying to stop people from using byproducts of a (for the most part) politicly and socialy accepted practice. spend the time on the cause, not the symptom.
I want to make it clear though that I am against Bush's plan. I don't think 60 is diversification enough and I beleave that this is amoral NOT to conduct such research.
Mike Rupert
Bah ... Majority Tyranny. "Best for the people" does not just mean what I think is best for the majority. No matter how much I want to shoot all the tree huggers out their, I'm not going to do it because they still pay taxes. They are people too. Just not ones I like particularly to deal with. If I'm in power, I'm still benefitting from their existence and so I'm going to meet the needs of the most people as possible in order to gain more power. If I'm not benefitting or have no chance of benefitting from them in the future, I'm probably going to shove them in a little camp in Antartica and let them freeze to death. This is not ethical. This is government so you can benefit yourself. So, if I kill 300 Americans because they have the plague with no chance of cure and it will kill 50,000,000 people if I don't kill them, do you think that is ethical. No. Is it for the good of the people. Probably(considering short-term alternative.)
When I'm talking about laws that are "good for the people", I'm not referring to Ethics. I'm talking about Theocracry(where the morale code is the law code) and non-theocratic government where you make laws because someone thinks it is needed. Big difference. In a theocracy, if someone drops a $20 bill on the ground, you get your hand cut off because you are "stealing." Where as, in other governments, you found the money fair and square.
Anyways, my point is, I'm trying to separate Ethics and Law. Their is a difference.
Just because a bunch of people believe or do something stupid, doesn't make it any less stupid.
could anyone believe we were listening to this stupid Texan talking about biology like he knew anything about it?
Can you believe there had to be a fscking presidential address about this issue?
Does anyone really believe he made a decision all by himself?
I don't.
How perfectly goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure. - Charles Crumb
Sputters, sprays drink all over keyboard. Whaddaya mean revealed?. As if no one could tell already? What other kind of politician could get elected in the current, thoroughly corrupt climate we live in?
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
Although this might appear to be flaimbait at first, go to www.christianitymeme.org and carefully consider it's contents before you decide it is.
You think that didn't happen? That all the Nazis did was just thrown away? I doubt it. Scientitsts and doctors aren't like that. Learning is learning, and it's all good, no matter who does it.
- Sig this!
I'm certainly no molecular biologist and maybe somebody can explain this one to me. From what I've read, the problem with adult gentic code is that it is damaged from replication over time. Why not extract stem cells from children before they are damaged?
An embryo is not a sentient human being. A miscarriage is not treated as accidental death by the law. An abortion is not treated as murder by the law. A tumor is "living human tissue" yet we have no trouble killing those cells. Grow up, your thousands of years old religious ideas have been continuously proved wrong over the centuries, such that even you accept the old ideas as wrong (earth centric universe, age of the earth, etc.) The rest of yor ideas are similarly fucked. Please effect reapir before rejoining society.
After Bush gets back from his current vacation (from his ranch where he did the broadcast from) he will have spent 42% of his term on vacation, more than any other president.
I don't understand at all why the federal government should fund this or any other research. Let individual states subsidize the research. Or better yet have individual citizens donate directly to the companies that do this research. Why must everything be funded with my tax dollars? And why is the issue always framed such that denying companies my tax dollars is equated with outright banning of research?
See, you're just being an evasive religious extremist. You point to all your other beliefs, other things that are generally viewed as good and just, and try to tie them to your fanatical ones. Stating that the rights of the working class are held so closely by you. How much women and minorities should be treated equally. Support for the poor people and countries. Yes these are all great things. Many right wings or moderates believe in them too though. I sure as hell do. But then you state that you know that taking a dead person and experimenting on them is unethical. I'm glad you have such a strong sense of your own ethics. There are probably a few that would disagree, that would state that anything to help people should be allowed, stating that the dead are dead and won't notice a thing. I guess I'm kinda drawn on the subject. The thought of somebody mucking around in my corpse isn't exactly pleasant, but then again, I'm going to be dead so what do I care? And if I end up having cells that prevents thousands to millions of deaths, hey, even better.
But that's not even the real kicker. The kicker is your tacking on that the dead includes fetuses. Now don't get me wrong, you're entitled to that opinion. However, don't go whining when you're placed in the group of the religious extreme. That is, afterall, the group that typically speaks out about the mistreatment of a few cells. that wouldn't be remotely able to survive on their own, or even get to a place where they could, like a parasite.
I suppose that in a certain light you might not be a religious extremist. I guess it all depends on your vantage point. My view of religious extremism is merely rabid evangelism and unwillingness to even consider another point of view because it goes against religion. And typically that's represented by stating that you know something that is controversial rather than believing it.
If not now, when?
I won't. You'll have to explain your "radio theory of the soul" a little better. Not that I totally disagree with your conclusion, but your premise makes me uncomfortable- making rules on the basis of "these cells together tune in to the radio of the soul" begs at least this question: why is it that the reception ain't so great for the first few years? Furthermore, think of all the "tuning in to the soul network" we could be doing if we didn't waste all those eggs and sperm cells- isn't that wrong in your worldview? If not, why?
Bryguy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Hey, if you have experimented on 60 "cell lines" amd are not having good results, maybe there is something wrong in your methadology?
Here's a good primer on the whole subject:
http://www.nih.gov/news/stemcell/primer.htm
psxndc
PS I will correct myself in saying that cDNA libraries do not deal with stem cells, but I do consider my girlfriend more of an expert than most because she does work in the field and does get cDNA libraries from fetal tissue (though most of it is homologous tissues like pig)
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
You assume too much. I have donated time, money and relatives to stem cell research. I will continue to do so, whether or not the government funds it. So will others.
> Even if you don't believe that we have souls, then
> at least consider that every embryo has the
> potential to become a fully-developed human being.
I do acknowledge that. However, if my arm gets cut off, I don't lose part of my soul (presumably.)
I would argue a tiny clump of undifferentiated cells is like a cut off arm in that it simply has not yet developed the biological portions required to have a soul.
No, no one should be forced to use tax dollars on things they don't believe in, certainly. But try to get a politician to let you not pay taxes for the military, or welfare, or social security, or what have you. Nahh, they all have to worship at the other false god of Democracy. Vox populi, Vox dei and all that.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
Consider the syphilis experiments that were done for 30 years in Alabama with federal oversight. The victims of this research were considered expendable. It took the federal governmwnt nearly thirty years to apologize. There is also a certain irony to Republicans pointing to the benefits of federal oversight, since they seem to be against it in most cases.
My other sig is extremely clever...
No...
/. article) about getting eggs to split sans sperm - and how that whole possibility opens up another can'o'worms, simply because most of society wants to think there is something "magical" about life. While I will admit we don't know it all, none of it is magic...
I was simply trying to point out that the egg, sans sperm - is alive and a lifeform - it is a single (albeit very large) cell.
A fertilized egg is alive (and a lifeform) as well. I am merely trying to point out that while it may be a lifeform, and alive - it isn't necessarily a human - it only has the _potential_ to be such.
And no, I am not trying to say the research is about eggs sans sperm - I was merely trying to point out about research mentioned (heck, I think in a past
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Whether or not you believe the pope means anything isn't important. The Pope might not even have any personal meaning to Bush....the thing is, is that there are still millions of Catholics who he does mean something to...and they have pretty clear feelings about this. It's a significant enough number to be seriously considered anyways, as his decision isn't just a personal thing...it's for the people of his Country. I think he actually did pretty good on this one.
Market prioritization is what brought out the snake oil salesmen and ponzi schemers of the early 1900's. Markets of people looking for miracle cures and instant wealth pushed the market to promote fraud. The government then got involved and we can now trust most of what we see advertised.
- Sig this!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that to prevent rejection, stem cells had to be created from a clone generated from the patient?
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
You don't want Feds to make decisions like that ?
Support every tax cut there is , less money flowing to DC less power for these people to make decisions about anything.
fuck you, shame you were not aborted.
I don't agree with the idea that "religious freedom" is obtainable or even necessary in the modern society. Almost everywhere in the world people already can gather in someone's home and practice any kind of religious ritual that doesn't include commiting some crime, or even behave in their private life according to the teaching of some religion -- again, within the boundaries that are allowed by the laws. Last time I have checked, most of popular religions, (at least in their most popular interpretations) do not openly advocate murder, theft, rape, fraud, etc. -- even islam and mormons -- so religious people that practice religion privately don't need any "protection" of their right to believe in their religions.
But "religious freedom" is not about rights, it's about a completely different thing -- power. Religions have a goal not only to guide some number of supporters, they have a goal of being spread, having new supporters indoctrinated, and to control the society. So with the exception of the case of parent, home-schooling his child based on the teaching of some religion, it's a matter of power, and in any society, even a very liberal one, power is not guaranteed to be given just because someone wants it -- power is not a right, and at best it's obtained because someone else exercises rights (to vote) but usually because someone else delegates that power. Governments don't have "right to have power", they are power and are at least supposed to exist for the purpose of using that power in the interests of the people that governments are supposed to be servants of. This means that governments by their purpose have a lot of power but no rights at all.
Now look at the organizations that are not government. Some can influence the government, and except for bribery and other unethical practices, their influence is based on them representing someone's interests, but it's in the end government's decision, to whom to listen, and government is supposed to make decisions for the good of the society (it usually doesn't but since I am explaining my point about oppression of religion being good I am talking about what government is supposed to do, not how it fails to do that). I, and other educated people, know that religions are, basically, a bunch of lies, and spreading religions in the society makes people dumber by creating salad in their heads, causes hypocrisy and unethical behaviour by creating artificial ethical contradictions that are nothing but contradictions of modern philosophy with old, flawed fictional texts. Religious people, of course, disagree, and will claim that my, or even majority of educated people's opinion is not any more justified than their claims, however disagreement never stopped society from restricting power, freedom or even rights of mentally ill people -- no one postpones placing someone into a mental clinic, or taking away their right to enter into some contracts until a person agrees that it will be for his own good -- most of people merely agree with the arguments of doctors that certain categories of people should not be allowed to place themselves and others in danger, and society's goal toward those people is not to care about their "freedom" to endanger themselves and others but to cure their diseases if possible, and if not, at least reduce the amount of their suffering. Mentally ill people may strongly disagree with that and demand a proof that they are sick and not everyone else, however unless discussions about that have therapeutic effect on their diseases, no one seems to be eager to discuss this topic with them.
With religions I am not against reducing rights of religious people -- despite some pretty "crazy" behavior, religious people don't do much harm while practicing their religions among themselves. But I am against giving those people power to control the society, government, education and science -- believing in something fictional being real is not a qualification for any kind of power, and at least scientific community (with the exception of seriously confused people heavily indoctrinated with religion in their childhood) has way, way more than necessary reasons to consider all religions to be based on false theories.
This is my explanation, why I consider oppression of religions' aspirations to power to be necessary, and not in any way contradicting to the idea of human rights. I understand that the government of this country does not accept this point of view, however this is not because of some kind of "freedom" and "democracy" practiced by it but because it is controlled by Christian fundamentalists. Christians can't declare official theocracy, so they do the second best thing and practice "freedom" that leaves them with the access to power due to their numbers, propaganda and poor education level of the large part of the population.
Now "pro-religious-freedom" folks are welcome to present their ravings. Yawn.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Hell, what if one of the scientists create a cure for alzheimers from this research and manages to patent it? What will you say then?
I'd say "Congratulations!". You know, cures just don't leap out of a university lab and into the pharmacy. They require millions of dollars of development and testing. While it might be nice if the public sector could be funded to that level, in reality only the money of private investors is enough. And they won't invest unless there is proprietory, patented technology. That's just the way it is. The pharmacy industry gets a bad rep for making lots of money, but really, if they didn't do that, the investors wouldn't be interested and no new drugs could be brought to market.
The difference is that the courts considered that small cluster of cells to be as valid a form of 'human life' as you, the parents would be going to jail for premeditated murder. The issue for the opponents of embryonic stem cell research (not all stem cell research), is that a living embryo is being killed. They consider that embryo to be a living human being, and the act of killing it to be murder. The issue of using the dead embryo's cells for research is actually a side issue. They don't want to create a demand for murdered humans.
and will they be making a profit from taxpayer dollars licensing them to the research institutions that will use federal funds to work on them now?
do any drug companies own the blastocyst lines? did any companies who developed the lines give any money to bush?
remember these are all PRIVATELY held and funded blastocyst lines that Bush has just let get funded.
He DID create an industry and he DID restrict the source for that industry. Sneaky, huh?
Goat sex free since 2001
Sure, unpopular things like universal vaccination or interstate highways.
Here's a page on eyes.
h tm l
http://www.learner.org/jnorth/tm/eagle/VisionA.
You see, we too can bend our lenses. It doesn't allow zooming, it allows focusing. Eagles, too, can bend their lenses, but also can bend their corneas, allowing for even more precise focusing. Finally, eagles also have two foveas (regions of densely packed rods and cones) in each eye, allowing for multiple focuses at the same time. But, they still can't zoom. They just have two regions that are always high-res and sharp, unlike our one, moderately-sharp region.
A fresnel lens, again, would only handle the focus. To zoom, you need two layered lenses if you want to keep focus.
-= rei =-
*Kid Rock runs for Senate* Democrats: We must run Kid Scissors.
Anyone who is pro-choice believes that women should have the right to choose abortion. That is the attitude which made abortion legal, more socially accepted, and widespread (approximately 40 million abortions have taken place in the US since Roe v. Wade).
If you believe women should have the right to choose abortion, you are pro-abortion -- every bit as much as I am pro-Linux because I believe everyone should have the right to choose Linux.
On the other hand, if he opposed research (as he said he would in his campaign) then the liberals and all science-oriented people would label him as a luddite who can't deal with the new technologies.
Instead, he says that he'll allow research, but not if the embryos are killed. Brilliant move. That's like telling a computer geek that "It's ok to mess around with your computer, but you had better not do anything that might damage the operation of the system," which is exactly the message he's sending.
Imagine if you were allowed to develop on a Cray supercomputer that has the potential to do some incredibly great things (like stem cell research is going to be doing). Imagine the possiblities... But your boss, who signs your checks, says "Ok, go ahead and program, but if you cause a GPF on the damn thing, you're fired and you get no more money".
Do you think that you'd be able to develop good programs? Of course not; you'd be too worried about losing your job. That's the same way with these stem cell researchers. They'll lose their funding if they kill any embryos, so they're not going to do anything that could even remotely harm them.
Stifling innovation, the President is...
I think Pres. Bush* (and Reagan in his time) is smart in the way that Pres. Carter was not, and vice-versa.
/.ers are. Carter graduated in the top 10%of his class at the Naval Academy and went on to do graduate work in Nuclear Physics. Unfortunately he did not know how to manage people and organizations; he tended to micromanage everything (supposedly even the place settings and tennis schedule at the White House) and as a result he was a terrible president**. It is a shame he couldn't go right to being ex-president; because he has done a great job at that.
/.ers) are smart. He doesn't seem to remember facts well, or have great language skills (very much UNLIKE Reagan), he certainly doesn't seem like the kind of guy you would want as a scientist or engineer or programmer. OTOH, he does seem to be very smart in the way Carter and many other technical people are dumb; he seems to know how to deal with people. He worked well with an opposition legislature as TX gov; he did manage to get elected as president; he seems to have done a great job picking advisors and getting cabinet members approved. Many of his speaches and descisions on very technical issues (Kyoto comes to mind) seem very well written, well informed and thought out (before you object, go read some of his speaches objectively). Obviously he didn't write them; and obviously he had considerable help from his advisors in making his decisions. I don't care how "dumb" the guy is as long as he is smart enough to pick good subordinates, empower them to do their job, and listen to what they say. I wish I had a boss that would do that. It will also be good if he can avoid throwing up on any other world leaders.
Pres. Carter seemed like a genuinely nice guy; and he was very smart... in the same way so many
Bush (and other notable presidents) seems to be dumb in many of the ways Carter (and most
* The current Pres. Bush that is. Ironically, his father seems to be in the category of being technically smart (in the subject of International Affairs, he is ex-DCIA and his diplomacy and manipulation of the Gulf War are still paying dividens) but less savvy than his son as a manager or politician.
** Remember stagflation; Afganistan; the Olympic boycott; the grain embargo and its effects on the commodity market; military decline; poor international relations; etc.
Right, but consider what happens when a new line is created. The line of reasoning Dubyah used to justify research on the existing lines would apply to the new ones once they've already been created. As he said, the life-and-death decision is already made for those cases.
From the article:
He said the NIH would begin work Friday on creating a federal registry for existing stem cell lines and that any company or research group that wants to receive federal funds must place their stem cell lines on the registry.
Also, they say they don't know exactly how many lines do exist because it's so proprietary. And let's not forget the question of lines of stem cells created in other countries. If those were made available, why not put those in the registry as well?
I'm not saying that all this falls directly out of Bush's speech. After all, he has so far only agreed to fund $250 mil on the existing 60 or so lines. But if the issue comes up again for a new set of lines, he won't be able to say no to them without going back on what has been said.
My deviantArt site
Oh wait, you're trying to tell us that all this fuss about the research is about eggs SANS sperm. No wonder why those fertility clinics make so many bucks.
I think the original question is not only valid, but it encompasses your equally valid questions, in a calm rational way.
>>I do acknowledge that. However, if my arm gets >>cut off, I don't lose part of my soul >>(presumably.)
Of course you do. But it will be waiting for you in heaven along with all of your dead pets
I am pleased with Bush's decision and hope that it was a decision that he truly believes in and not simply a means of gaining bipartisan acceptance. Most of the articles I have seen claim that both sides are pleased with the decision (supporters because the research will be continue, non-supporters because new stem-cell lines will not be funded (though I do not understand why this is considered a success). I think that some of the non-supporters will have a change of heart once one of their loved ones is saved from one of the many horrendous diseases this research hopes to abolish. Hopefully, successes such as these will detract from the movie-of-the-week (Lifetime of course) ideas of creating custom children. Personally, I cannot wait for the Micro$oft Child addition to Office.
JiM
"If you're prenatal you're fine, if you're preschool, you're fucked." - George Carlin
Better living through reckless experimentation.
Anyway, I'm happy Bush didn't cave to either side on this. I'd rather we have some continued federal funding than none. Some of the reaction Yahoo posted up is interesting though:
Who wants to stick THESE two in an invitro lab together?
"All mankind is at the mercy of a handful of neurotics". - Norman Douglas
Actually, researchers are finding that ASC (Adult Stem Cells) can be amazingly "plastic"--that is, they can be persuaded to become several different types of cells. There are currently many treatments being developed using these cells. (See CURRENT CLINICAL APPLICATIONS OF ADULT STEM CELLS at http://www.stemcellresearch.org/info/currentaps.pd f, and POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS of ADULT STEM CELLS at http://www.stemcellresearch.org/info/potentialaps. pdf.)
Thus far, the results of medical trials using ESC (Embryonic Stem Cells) has not been living up to the hype. In fact, some of the results have been rather frightening, for example: tumors of hair, bone and other tissue forming because the ESC are able to become ANY type of cell.
------ "Darn floor. Big bite." (Koko the gorilla's best attempt at explaining the experience of an earthquake.)
Ignore all the idiot talking heads on the TV. This is the research side of things. They're already talking about how the 60 lines may not cure everything, blah blah blah. Thats partisan gobbledygook. The idea is to use the 60 lines for research. If it turns out that stem cells help a certain disease, and none of the 60 lines is the best or works perfectly, with the research they can determine what would make a "perfect match." Then the rules change, and the research changes to finding that perfect match.
Anyone who suggests that 60 lines isn't enough doesn't really understand quite whats happening here. Everyone is trying to make it sound like they already have cured everything, but FedGov is stopping them from injecting them into everyone to cure their runny noses.
...No New FrankenSpooge."
Power to the Peaceful
There is NO fundamental difference between killing babies for research and making use of Nazi medical research performed on the Jews. If you accept the one, you have no moral reason to despise the other.
People who oppose the slaughter of unborn babies for the sake of extending the lives of others ask this question: Should we do evil that good may come?
No.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
I'm sure this has already been said in every post on this thread, but I don't have time to read every post. So as we all know, Federal Funding will not be provided for any new embryonic stem cell lines. And Bush clearly stated last night that there were 60 different lines. First, I want to say that most researchers agree that there are currently only at most 12 stem cell lines, and that these may not provide the results needed to go very far in this field. My 9 year old brother has Type I, or to some Juvenile, diabetes. My mother had ovarian cancer. And my grandmother passed away inflicted with more diseases than I care to count. I think that if one of Bush's daughters or his wife were inflicted with a disease that had the possibility to be cured through stem cell research, then he might break his little campaign promise. Now of course these are just gripes and won't go anywhere, but I think that a lot of us can agree that the smart masses are calling out for more from the President than what he's done. He gave us some, but like starving orphans, we want somemore. -- "A conservative is a man who sits and thinks..... mostly sits." --Woodrow Wilson
I happened to be watching him on C-Span,
and after he talked, it was funny as hell, cause all these Annoying Churchy people kept calling and dissing him and yelling, then the MISC (mothers with Sick Children) called in dissappointed.
Overall, I thought this was a pretty solid decision, and the more I think of it the more I agree with it. While there will be some who advocate complete funding of every new line we can get, I think most of us would agree that, given laws of supply and demand, that could set up a very slippery slope.
The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
That being said, I just want to tell her that those fertilized eggs were going to be discarded anyways. The couples who had them produced don't want the excess and if, by some chance, other couples wanted them, I would think only a small handful of them would be used. So even though these eggs all have the potential to produce human life, they will be discarded after they are used. So now what will happen? The couples who had them produced will be sent to jail for murder of a cluster of cells???
<tangent>
This is just an excuse by the evangelical, protestant conservative right wing of the Republican Party to hijack the country and force it to accept ITS views, especially on the right to life and abortion. IMO abortions and anything related to it are a bad thing and it should be avoided if possible. But whatever choice is made by the people involved IS NOBODY ELSE'S BUSINESS These rights cannot and should not be legislated away and those people who physically maim or kill those involved are not doing God's work - they are murderers.
</tangent>
Sanity.html - Error 404 not found
Er, why clone people? For despondent parents to replace their lost children, or what? (and in such a case, think about the pressure on the kid...) For parents who, for some strange reason, simply want a large number of genetically identical kids?
I see medical potential for stem cell research, ranging from producing organs to replacing damaged nerve tissue. I don't see that many applications for cloning people, at least as far as people are concerned -- clearly, if aliens come down and start munching on people, *they* might want to clone, genetically engineer, selectively breed, or otherwise improve the stock, but most of us aren't anthrophages.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I don't have a soul. So what's the big deal. When I die, I am not going to heaven or hell or anyplace inbetween. When I die I will end up in a Casket which will eventually leak and the worms will finish me off. The cycle of life continues.
Just because a bunch of people believe or do something stupid, doesn't make it any less stupid.
Science at one point in history did believe those things, science changed at another point
Science never claimed that the world was flat, or that the Earth was at the center of the universe. You are going to have to drop some names here to support your argument. But before you do, realize that philosopers are not scientists; thinkers/sages are not scientists; seers are not scientists; oracles are not scientists. Scientists work through experimentation and observation. The first scientist to really challenge the notion that the Earth was flat was Gallileo, who for his efforts, was excommunicated. The church never has, and is still not open to any science that undermines their centuries of indoctrination of the masses. Dont even think of saying the church was merely embracing the previous scientific model because a) they didnt, and b) there was no previous scientific model, only guesses and assumptions.
The ivory tower has never had to reach so h
The problem is two fold with this reasoning.
1. There is a lack of consent on the part of the fetus. This will never be possible to get.
2. The fetus was actively destroy by the scientist in his noble goal of ending disease. This reminds me of the Nazi scientist who experimented on people who "were going to die anyways" or "were already killed". We rightfully rejected their science and we should reject the science of any researcher who uses cells from an actively destroyed fetus.
"My view of religious extremism is merely rabid evangelism and unwillingness to even consider another point of view because it goes against religion."
This is such a narrow scope and view of religion. Many who refer to religious extremist use the same exact style of reasoning and have the same pigheadedness when it comes to their own beleifs. This is the nature of ethics and not a feature soley concern with religion. If you ever been to college in the early to mid 90's you may have heard of a man called "Brother Jed" who went around to various campuses and "preached". He is the classic fundamentalist christian. Unbending in his devotion to his beliefs, both in blindness to "the word" and in blindness to the limitations of his mental abilities to reason through an arguement. If I learned anything about watching people "argue" with him it's that the nature of that extremism is not a feature of religion, in and of itself, but a feature of humans and their devotion to show everyone else how stupid they are not to see the light.
The difference between having morals and being an extremeist is not one of point of view. An extremist would never believe you no matter how rational your arguement. Unfortunatly for those of us who look up to the likes of Gustavo Gutierrez, Dorathy Day and are well versed in our Wellhausen and Noth while maintaining a belief that all life is sacred (no matter how insignificant it looks), we are lumped into the same catergory as those yearn for the days of women getting illegal abortions and dieing. (I, unlike other Pro-Lifers, know for a fact that there need to be changes in society before abortion can be outlawed...including but not limited to child care access, an increase in the education of the poor, easier access to adoption to those who can take care of the unwanted, increases access to heath services)
Burn Hollywood Burn
That distinction depends a lot on what we mean by "dead". Consider organ donation. Organs are taken from dead people, but those dead people have beating hearts and are breathing with mechanical assistance. Yet we still consider them dead -- "brain dead" -- because their brain is non-functioning and incapable or recovery.
How does that correspond to embryos? Embryos also do not have a functioning brain. Does that make them "brain dead"? But they do have the potential to develop a functioning brain. So does that make them not "brain dead"?
Unfortunately, you only tell half the story. It is still theoretically possible to clone a human by implanting the blastocysts derived by somatic nuclear transfer into a woman's uterus, rather than using them to make stem cells
That was Bush's choice. Stem cell research will be done. The question is where will it be done. Outlaw it here? Comapnies will have foreign research labs do it.
The same the thing can be said for clones and other frankenstein technologies. We best make whatever discoveries can be made here. Let some of that franken-stuff be done in zambia on a shoestring budget and they are liable to open pandora's box and turn loose whatever they find.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
According to this page about organ donation, "brain death" is the irreversible loss of all functions of the brain. The embryo's lack of brain function is "reversible" via implantation in a willing mother.
It appears the true brain death criterion is "no hope for future brain functioning", not "no brain functioning".
So you think we're supposed to just throw money at the problem to make it go away? Wake up and smell the coffee! We tried throwing $$$ at education and it is still in trouble.
You can't just start throwing money at it until it can prove that it has made a major breakthrough and will need more funding. Until then...
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
I listened to the speech, and I thought he made a very wise, reasoned decision. Unfortunately, what I heard on talk radio was that he 'waffled'. 'He didn't make a decision at all,' the commentator spouted.
The sad thing about politics is that sometimes exactly half of the people are for one side and exactly half are for the other. There is no way to please both sides completely. I thought this decision did the job of giving both sides what they claimed they wanted (research on the one side vs. not killing babies on the other).
You can say he waffled. You can say he is an idiot. You can say whatever you want, but in the end I'm proud to call this man President. He to the time to carefully consider the argument from both sides are reached a decision that should make everyone happy.
Of course, this is the real world, and for a lot of people (especially the blowhards who dominate the media) it's not about getting what they claim they want. It's about being in control. The previously mentioned commentator would only be happy if Bush had denied all funding for research, and would then claim Bush was a weeny if the President didn't send his own personal bodygaurds out to hunt down rogue scientist who would dare try to cure Parkinson's disease (which my father has, and I dread). A lot of the 'scientist' (ie, liberal blowhards) would only be happy if Bush came out and said that he is putting up a billion federal dollars to start cell farms, then would get upset if he balked over spending more money to harvest near-term babies from underprivileged women for body parts. You won't hear either of these parties expressing thankfullness that everyone got what they needed, even if they didn't get what they wanted.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Intelligence wins out but only partly. Stem cells are not going to be research to their full extent. Only enough so Bush can say he is staying alive but not so much that he can go against his ethical beliefs. Sucks for us.
Just because a bunch of people believe or do something stupid, doesn't make it any less stupid.
I am having trouble finding where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights the government is givin the task of dolling out tax dollars to fund any medical research. Could someone point me in the right direction?
Research should be privately funded. If you don't like the kind of research a company is doing, boycott that company's products. When the government gets involved, things get a lot more complicated. How will you boycott the government?
Power off before disconnecting connecting connector. Seen on a cash register
shaddup bitch
How perfectly goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure. - Charles Crumb
Stem cells are cells which can divide in the laboratory and which have the ability to develop into certain kinds of specialized tissues. There is several types of stem cells, all of which are not used for research. The stem cells being used for research are called human pluripotent stem cells. These cells can develop into most of the organs and tissues of the human body, but they cannot develop into a human life without the help of other types of cells. (National Institutes of Health)
These stem cells can be derived from fertilized eggs at a certain point during the development of the embryo. More information about this process is available in the NIH's publication, "Stem Cells: A Primer,".
some religous orginizations are NOT against it.
if the reader of this post is interested in finding some information explaining stem cells so the can make an informed decsision go here
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The person I was replying to was an atheist; thus, (s)he does not believe in the concept of a soul. If you want to declare a "soul" as consciousness, that's a religious issue, and you have no right to force that on others. An athiest, for example, sees consciousness as an illusion of the pattern of synapses.
The level of consciousness of even a child with downs syndrome is many times higher than that of even a rabbit, if you're looking at complexity of synaptic activity and learning ability like an atheist would. Again, if you're looking at consciousness as coming from a "soul", thats a religious stance.
Now, when we're talking about chimpanzees , I believe their rights are *underrepresented*, for just this reason, not that some humans' rights are overrepresented. I know some humans who, if placed in a room where their only food was in a box with a sturdy rope around it, and there were just a bunch of rocks on the ground, would figure out that they could make a flint dagger and use that to cut the rope, like a bonobo has been observed to do - or, when given a cell phone, figure out how to use the address book to call people (like a common chimpanzee who stole a phone from its zookeepers did). Or, when raised in an environment where it was not taught about modern human society, and introduced to the concept of currency, would invent prostitution (etc).
-= rei =-
*Kid Rock runs for Senate* Democrats: We must run Kid Scissors.
Disproven by counterexample.6 8000/1468260.stm
Some Isrealis created heart cells from embryonic stem cells:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_14
We should have 'dishonest/misinformed' as a mod choice.
X Files episode. In real life, most of what we know about the limitations of human endurance have are from Nazi doctors' notes. How long it takes to drown, how much blood you can lose, ability to recover from concussions, all of this is stuff the Nazis tested under laboratory conditions. Obviously, we would never replicate these experiments, so as grim as it is, it's useful data that is otherwise totally unobtainable.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
...decision of George W. Bush that you could call "smart". Wow. I thought it would never happen.
And it's a "smart" law [1] - interesting to see something like that can happen in the USA in the days of DMCA and UCITA.
[1] Or whatever it is - No, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't live in the U.S. (and I'm glad about that)
Elderly?? While it too late for my father, uncle, and my good friend's mother (three quick examples) all who were in their 40's, it'd still be wonderful to find more benefits and/or cures related to pre-natal stem cell efforts so the 10 yr olds of today don't have to go through the same misery myself and friends have had to go through.
Yeah, you're damn right it's worth it. For the elderly, of course, but more for our parents, ourselves, and friends.
It's good to see the /. community discussing social issues.
On the contrary, you appear to not entirely understand evolution.
Your claim essentially states that all life on the planet is all the same species with radically different traits. I'd be hard-pressed to say I'm the same species as a humming bird, or a tiger.
Yes, features change. Intra-species evolution. Species do not. I have brown hair, my mom has blond. Different genes. Hardly evolution. Under evolution, yes, those genes would have to become a part of our DNA, but they aren't evolution! Different features != evolution!
Evolving a facial feature is quite different from say, evolving legs instead of fins.
Mutations are very rarely beneficial to adding new alleles to the gene pool. As such, you're gonna have to go through a veritable mountain of mutations before you get even one that advances the species. Mathematically, you would have encountered mutations that would have contributed to the elimination of the species long before you reached that beneficial one.
From your Talk Origins site:
Even at the high end of 8 billion years, you don't have anywhere near enough time.
By contrast, in 8 billion years, there have been 4.7*10^17 seconds. And that's at 366 days a year.
That means you'd have to try approximately 40,000 combonations every second to achieve one example of those 124 chains by today. And look where life is.
Mathematical impossibility is defined as an event requiring more time to occur than there has been time for it to occur. By such definition, the formation of a cell from a primordial soup of material is mathematically impossible. That's one cell. Repeat that process an innumerable number of times till you get an organism that can survive and reproduce. Throw in a few trillion more years to eventually evolve to man.
If evolution was occuring so quickly, I would be a radically different organism from my parents, and I would look absolutely nothing like my grandparents.
Uncomfortable yet?
Math is one of the few things we know to be absolute. And the odds don't lie.
Perhaps you "get lucky", hit that wild chance, and get an organism to come together. Boom, it's killed by solar radiation.
Game over. Do not pass go, do not collect your parent's alleles. Back to square one.
Now, if you want to recalculate the age of the universe to several quadrillion years, I'll be willing to rethink it. But then you have to back up your claim for the age.
Not quite. Some adult stem cells become just one kind of cell--these are unipotent stem cells. Other adult stem cells can become one of several types of cells--these are multipotent. For example, adult bone marrow stem cells can become kidney, liver, nerve and muscle cells. (BTW, embryonic stem cells, which can become any type of cell, are pluripotent.)
Once again. So, logically, he's claiming to be Christian, though he really is an egomaniac. What a wonderful way of pandering to the religious right!
Man. This bush-whacking is demeaning to my razor-dull wit.. To think that someone would perhaps snicker at this.
Stop the brainwash
I thought this decision was very surprising, I expected an all out ban. I thought he was taking his time because he wanted to present the appearance of actually considering it, but he actually did.
I realize many people will still be pissed with this decision and spew a ton of vitriol towards Mr. Bush, but you have to recognize that this was a huge comprimise on his part.
After Bush spoke with the pope(who Bush recognizes as actually meaning something... I sure don't) and the pope told him not to allow any funding for stem-cell research I thought that was going to be final.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Ah, you did kinda missed the point ;) My example was working on single-celled organisms to make the example simpler. When it comes to pairs of organisms, you really have 3 possible cases:
:)
:)
1. Better mates with better
2. Worse mates with better
3. Worse mates with worse
The population of most species in an unchanging environment tends to hold roughly steady when there are no changing external factors - lets say 50% death rate and 2 births per pair. The death rate is from the worst adapted ones (remember, just because most mutations are harmful, doesn't mean they're fatal - very few are. It just means it won't stand up to competition as well). The birth rate comes from whichever ones are left, randomly intermixed (like the 3 categories).
An asexual species was much simpler for proof of concept like I was doing. There are many AE simulations that do run on sexual species, though
BTW, mating also occurs in some single celled organisms, and doesn't occur in some multicellular organisms (a kinda neat example is a species of parthogenic lizard of which all are female. They can reproduce by themselves. Like many animals (cats, kowalas, etc), the species they developed from (a sexual species) doesn't ovulate until stimulated. So, the females "mate" with each other, and that makes them produce an egg (which develops on its own))
Good night!
-= rei =-
*Kid Rock runs for Senate* Democrats: We must run Kid Scissors.
I believe some RTL organizations are against it altogether and others merely oppose the creation of extra embryos to use as "spares" in case the first attempt implanting in the womb fails. I have some friends who made 4 attempts at in vitro before successfully carrying a baby to term. They did a separate fetilization each time so that there wouldn't be any left over embryos if they succeeded, which ended up costing them a lot more money.
I'm not going to argue whether Bush's decision was right or wrong, but what struck me as unusual during the speech was his decision to let the research continue on stem cells whose embryos were already dead. This smacks of "washing his hands" of the one aspect he thinks is wrong- the destruction of embryos (aka potential human life).
Again, I'm not judging the right or left wings here, but his justification could be a bad precedent. During WWII, German and Japanese "doctors" were known to have performed horrible experiments on Jews and POWs (and others). Maybe I'm confusing this with an X-files episode, but wasn't it decided not to use the results of any those experiments, no matter how beneficial, since the experiments themselves were totally unjustifiable?
If Bush is against abortion, embryo destructions, etc. isn't his decision to use these stem cell lines hypocritical? Fruit from a poison tree (or however that saying goes)?
-tim
Right, which is why one can't consider embryonic stem cell research without also considering the possibility of a marketplace for harvested embryos.
Here's why.
1. Do you trust that the drug companies and biotech research institutions (always partially funded by the drug companies) have our best interests in mind?
2. Do we want the rich and powerful to live forever? Is stem cell research likely to help the average human being - no, it will be far too expensive. So who are these miracle treatments for? The people who can afford them, of course.
3. Ain't it odd that such anti-abortion stalwarts as GWB and Orin Hatch have come out in favor of stem cell research. Well apparently it really isn't a religious question at all (all the FUD about when a "soul" is placed in the blastocyst). Could it perhaps be about payola in the form of campaign contributions. And is this the manner that important decisions that affect the entire species should be made - by a few very wealthy and very rich multinational drug companies and their toady research institutions.
4. People die, get over it. Humans (especially the more affluent ones) need to learn to die with a little grace. Hell, as a species we've been dying regularly for at least couple hundred years. So enough with the miracle treatments already. We'd all be far better off (and live longer) investing in clean water.
Mark my words - within 5 years humans will be cloned for fertility reasons. Most likely humans have already been cloned (with the embryos destroyed). Of course no researcher would publish this research yet because it is illegal, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. If they did it with a sheep, you can rest assured they did it with a human.
We don't have the wisdom yet to control such power of our own genetics. I say outlaw it until we've evolved past the current Capital problem.
The usual knee-jerk conservative reaction to that would usually be "We're not talking about destroying a -life-, destroying a -potential life- is just as bad!"
Of course, we also encourage contraception, which is a very positive thing in our culture.
1) Is killing human cells a horrible thing?
Of course not! We do this all the time, it happens on its own every second. We don't even think twice about removing organs if they're harming our health. So, (1) is obviously false.
2) Is killing a complete life a horrible thing?
Of course not! We kill complete lives all the time! Just walking, breathing, existing stomps out thousands of lives per second. We kill plants like its nothing, animals even, sometimes even mammals. If you're not a vegetarian, think of all the chickens/fish/cows/pigs you've caused the deaths of.
But... since 1 and 2 aren't individually bad at all... why do you suddenly combine them together to equal something that's so horrendous that you most force your views on others?
The reality is, there is no magical thing that makes it suddenly a sin - that's just an arbitrary definition designed to defend your current views. In reality, the thing that makes killing a human tragic is destroying a complex human consciousness. A 2-week-old embryo doesn't even have neurons, let alone synapses, let alone complex synapses, let alone human complexity synapses, let alone unique human complexity synapses.
-= rei =-
*Kid Rock runs for Senate* Democrats: We must run Kid Scissors.
Yeah, and if I really wanted to, I could extend that line of reasoning into: contraception being bad, masturbation being bad, and menstruation being bad (each egg is a potential life! You are, in effect, MURDERING that life if you don't inseminate it!) In other words, who cares?
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Yeah, but if you noticed, "early embryos" don't just spontaneously spring into existance. Eggs and sperm do. (Or, at least, without our control and intervention.)
The only real difference between the two situations is the location of the embryo. In my opinion, an object in a different position is still the same object. Therefore, if you believe that life begins at conception, then "rolling your own" is just as unethical.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
yeah
you're in touch with reality.
right.
How perfectly goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure. - Charles Crumb
What a moral weasel, Bush is. He is effectively killing stem cell research. It's the same decision he made when he said he'd end bombing on Vieques (we should not end it). He's trying to please both sides. Except he's not. He's trying to kowtow to his big bu$ine$$ contributor$, but at the same time he must kowtow to his religious supporters who think first amendment only loosely applies to Christianity.
Those 60 lines already derived, well golly, are already murdered (according to pro lifer's standards). Might as well make the most of them. That's like telling George Washington, "Gee, George, you've already chopped down the cherry tree. Might as well sell it for firewood. No sense letting it go to waste."
If government funding is used for stem cell research then no company should be allowed to derive intellectual property from it.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
I think Bush handled this issue remarkably well both from a moral and political standpoint. For such a touchy issue, he did a good job making most everyone happy. Granted, this only concerns Federal funds for stem cell research, but it establishes a moral example for how the US views the issue.
I'm personally against embryonic stem cell research because regardless if those 4 or 5 cells have a soul or not, the very concept of dismantling a living embryo for spare parts devalues human life in a similar way that abortion does. If we encourage this, it will be easier to nudge a little further down the moral slope the next time a biotech ethics issue pops up. Then before long, we arrive in a brave new world where humans are routinely cloned or grown full size for spare parts then frozen, genetically engineered to meet the latest fashion craze, and undesirable persons are slaughtered because society doesn't want them. Extreme? yes. But also fully possible.
life begins after medical school.
I guess my hairy programmer's ass will forever be subhuman.
That is, Stem cells which are fully developed, i.e. Have grown into bone marrow, Fat deposits, or dura/pia matter in the spinal cord, cerebellum. These cells could be made useful, but right now embryonic stem cell research can use this type to conceivably grow any organ in the body in a lab environment.
There is no spork.
Good points, however, I do think someone dying from let's say by getting hit by a drunk driver is a bit different than an terminating an embryo in a clinic.
If you think those other stem cell projects are so important, Make a tax deductable donation to some stem cell research group. If you can't find one, start one and get an even bigger tax break. This way the government still foots the bill, but you don't force people who believe it is wrong to support it.
Read and enjoy !
Don't you see that when you accuse someone of playing God that you are doing the exact same thing, where the other person is doing it or not?
Why Abortion is Moral
http://elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html
Abor
Quick answer: A fetus does not develop a brain or a central nervous system until the 4th month of pregnancy! That means no consciousness, thought, feelings or anything! Before it's born, it's a potential person, not yet a conscious, independent person.
Why Abortion is Biblical
http://elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html
How anti-abortion activists misrepresent the biblical record
The Skeptic's Annotated Bible
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.html
300 bible contradictions explained...
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contradic
This (or possibly having several extra limbs grafted on so I've got more to spare) looks like the most promising research to facilitate this defence mechanism. Hooray for George W!
However, as I understand it (IANATexan) their constitution still says "Republic of Texas", so, theoretically, TX can declare independence at any time and be within the law since they never rewrote their Constitution to make them a part of the USA. In practice, though, that would be as illegal as the Confederacy during the US Civil War.
I could be full of it, but this is what I've always heard.
"Saying this doesn't imply that it didn't have any effect on the way the world has developed, quite the opposite. "
Oh please, you do realize that people who describe organized religion in these terms are NOT doing this from neutral position.
"and I could logically say that Christianity IS evil, since it's responsible for spreading countless diseases to that population"
I think Native Americans benefited from this whole ordeal but this is strictly personal opinion and since I have no means to prove it I won't push it any further.
I do agree that religion has similar effect as some drugs. I don't like that term since it implies addiction and all widely known ills associated with this disease.
"It makes people feel better about themselves, absolves them of guilt and fear, and takes away a degree of freedom. "
One can say that about everyone. We all have our little fetishes and nightmares and all end up slaves to things that make us feel better.
Who is to say that sex addiction is more natural and "mature" than belief in supernatural being?
The difference is that former, on average, is much more beneficial to the society in large.
Hi, Luke.
Does this mean that the NRA is not pro-gun, but pro-choice?
I thought people were fed up with all the politics going on- and it sure seems like more of the same- refusal to take a real stand, because, horrors of horrors, he may lose some of his constintuency.
/. constantly. Companies only work on stuff that will show on next quarters stock report.
You've got serious people with serious concerns on both sides of an issue. The whole point of politics and the government is to facilitate the process of us all living together. Would you rather have fighting in the streets to resolve the issue?
Besides, he did say 'no'. He said, "No new harvesting." He also said a firm yes. He said, "Yes, use what you have."
It doesn't look like this decision will make embryonic stem cell research any easier- now they will need documentation on the particular line of the cell and so forth.
Say you run a Journal. Would any research that did not have this documentation be worth the time of other researchers to read? Wouldn't anything you do without this documentation be totally worthless?
-"Hey, Bubba. We got these here cells thingies to develope into a living, growing, jumping frog."
-"Wow, that's cool Jethro. Where'd the cells come from."
-"I dunno."
Commercial work in this area is great- but companies need to push for profits and drop research in areas that are not immediately promising.
Bullshit. I worked as a security guard at Ciba-Geigy(sp?) when I was in school. They had been doing research on pre-emergent insecticide/herbicides for years(>20), because of the promise that it would use a fraction of the chemicals and be more potent. Obviously not immediately promising, and yet the company persist. I hear this argument on
I'll turn it around at you and say that most academics spend time chasing rainbows that have no application (obvious or otherwise), and that only occasionally does someone develope something that is useful. (Yes, this statement is also full of shit, but no more so than yours.)
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Kevin Keane, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said the NIH believes at least 60 and as many as 69 or more lines exist in the United States and other countries, and will be made available for federally funded research. The exact number of stem cell lines was not widely know because "it's so private, so proprietary," he said. - CNN http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/08/10/stemcell .decision/index.html
Ahh, so you've personally counted all of them and only found 58 or so? Oh my, Bush has pulled the wool over everyone but you!
Lets see, your researchers were suprised and pleased that there were that many, but none came out and said that the number was wrong.
Now, go wipe the froth from your mouth...
Well, Polio and Small Pox (sp?) come to mind right off the bat. I'm sure there are many others. If some sort of "vaccine" for breast cancer became available tomorrow, I think you can be pretty sure that it would become available to all women. Of course, in the end its your tax dollars that pay for it, so those devilish pharmaceutical companies will still make a profit in the end for saving thousands of lives. Bastards.
This is an excellent example of the slippery slope we are on. By even asking "who owns..." you start degrading the human life that was produced these lines. Maybe I'm wrong but I thought slavery (the ownership of another human) was banned in this country. What's to stop us from asking "who's property is this fetus, this baby, etc.?" I'm just thankful that Mom and Dad though of me as a person not fodder for research. You should be too.
Naturally, we can't measure evolution.
We can't measure mutation rates. We can't measure rates of changes over fossils over time. We can't measure rates of change of individual body parts over time. We can't use these to build detailed tree structures.
Yeah, nice try. Next!
BTW, the Air Conditioner argument is about entropy. You obviously didn't see the point. An air conditioner is a device which runs counter to entropy! How on earth does it do this??? Well, simple, it has power. The power is being shipped from a power plant, where there a *lot* of energy being released. The air conditioner, if it were the only thing in the universe (well, it and air), would violate the laws of entropy. However, it doesn't, since it is not a closed system - it takes in power.
Likewise, Earth is anything but a closed system. Picture taking a plant, and shoving it in a dark closet, and not touching it. What would happen? It would shrivel up and die. It was moved to something that was, effectively to it, a closed system. Entropy was the only option. However, in the sun, it grows and flourishes. If you were to put the earth in a dark "closet", it would "quickly" die, as entropy started to take its course. The sun makes the earth not a closed system.
Energy can move around between different parts of a system. The overall energy in the system cannot increase. That is why that is such an annoyingly silly argument to people who know anything about thermodynamics.
-= rei =-
*Kid Rock runs for Senate* Democrats: We must run Kid Scissors.
Plenty of research is publicly funded INDIRECTLY through the funding of Universities.
I don't think that Bush caved into the "right wing" religious nut-cases of the Republican party. I think that this is what he believes. I also happen to like GWB, because I believe he will do what he believes is right. However, as a scientist and an enlightened atheist, I strongly disagree.
There is no debate over whether these embryo's are life -- they are life. A bacterium is a living organism, though small, unaware, and primitive. Similarly, so is an embryo.
The real question is not when "life" begins -- there is nothing special about life, we squash bugs every day -- but when personhood begins. I think that it is absurd to say that this little protoplasm of cells deserves the status of a person, or any rights whatsoever.
As it deserves no rights, we need not worry about any absurd moral delemnas of using embryo's for research. This is just moral hair-splitting, really a bunchof bullshit. But even if you believe that it is a person, so what? All of these embryo's that were not implanted in women are going to die anyways -- so why not use them for research?
As I said before, I happen to like President Bush, and agree with him on many issues. However, there are many issues I disagree with him on. This is one of those issues. I think the curent decision is a major set-back to science, and backwards religious thinking. Religion has no place in politics, and I think the only way to justify such a decision is via religion. The religion of one man should not be forced on other's.
On the other hand, there are now techniques via which to turn a normal adult cell into an embryonic stem cell, and techniques via which to make one stem cell go on replicating indefinately, via turning on telomerase. This may provide a solution for the problem from the limited number of cells we can do research on.
Again, I like GW Bush, and think he did what he thought was right. However, I disagree with him. The only justification for such a position is a religious one, and religion has no place hindering the progress of science.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Many of them end up getting implanted in an infertile woman's uterus, as opposed to being "disposed of."
I would like to see an effort made to not create so many surplus embryos in the first place. Surely the fertility clinics could refine their procedures to cut down on this.
The difference in the cases you cite is that you are already dead before we do research with your corpse. The child is already dead before we do research with its corpse. We have to kill the embryo before we can do research on its corpse.
Many stem cell lines come from the extra embryos created during fertility treatments. Those embryos probably would have been killed anyway.
Here's another alternative: let an embryonic cell divide once, and then separate the two cells from each other. Take one of the cells for stem cell research, and then do whatever you were originally planning to do with the other one (implant it in the woman, etc). Would that be considered ok, or would it be considered cloning followed by murder?
The shareholder is always right.
Stem cell research finds a cure for 20 different disease/afflictions.
Now what happens if it is the case that only embryonic(sp) stem cells can be used for these cures? Do we start paying women to make embryos to use as cures? Do we start requiring or at least expecting women to do this when possible?
And would there be money to find an easier cure if there are these available sources?
Does anybody have a problem using the pre-born to extend the lives of the elderly?
I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!
It sure seems to me that GWB didn't really make a decision- what people wanted was a definitive yes or no, but he ends up giving a "you can't blame me," try to please the most people, answer. I don't see it as a decision, it is more of a postponement of the answer, and a deferral to his new "council" on the matter.
I thought people were fed up with all the politics going on- and it sure seems like more of the same- refusal to take a real stand, because, horrors of horrors, he may lose some of his constintuency.
It doesn't look like this decision will make embryonic stem cell research any easier- now they will need documentation on the particular line of the cell and so forth. Embryonic stem cell research has been really hard already for any entity that is not privately funded- the government has required an extreme amount of separation in the facilities of Universities doing this sort of research (to the point of demanding completely separate, off-campus facilities, with absolutely no sharing of equipment/staff/support, and so on... there was a NPR report on this a few weeks back).
I don't think that this decision will really advance the cause of stem cell research, more just push it further into the arms of commerical entities. Commercial work in this area is great- but companies need to push for profits and drop research in areas that are not immediately promising. The value of government investment is that it enables researchers to work on deeper, long term projects that may not have an obvious path to profit. Research does not always mean success.
But, somehow, I seriously doubt she has never given her kid any sort of medication such as tylenol, antibiotics, etc. What if that same hcild would've died form a high fever, infection, etc.?
Most of you probably know that the US Congress recently passed a bill prohibiting stem cell research. Prohibiting may not be the correct work, I don't know all the details. Frankly, I don't care. The point is, I think America desperately needs human cloning, and here's why: How else will we be able to transplant the organs of celebrities into our own bodies? It's not like they'll give up their own. What do you think would happen if you walked up to Alec Baldwin and said, "Hey, I really loved 'The Hunt For Red October'. Can I have your kidneys?" He would probably laugh. Or call the police. Or just kick your ass right there because he's a movie star and he can do whatever he wants. However, if we could clone Alec Baldwin and raise his kidneys from scratch in a test tube, anyone could have them! Even you and me! Think of the possibilities! Is 85 beats a minute too much for your circulation system? Supplement your own pulse with an inexpensive and ever-so-helpful Bob New-Heart. Talk about breathtaking! Who needs a respirator when you could have a brand new pair of Jennifer Lungs Hewitt? It wouldn't have to stop at just celebrities either. World leaders could donate their DNA to the cause. You could become a dermatologists dream with a Henry Hide, or finally get back your regularity with the increasingly popular Colon Powell. Feeling too small to get any action? Well, you won't anymore with your Dick Cheney (Or for the ladies, a George W. Bust). Sadly, however, Washington has made its decision. Goodbye Kathy Eye-reland! So long Brain Dennehy! Sure, outlawing celebrity organ transplants could have some positive effects, like preventing the occurence of Anthony Michael Gall Stones, but how could anyone digest food without their Pancreas-topher Reeves? Thanks, Congress, for destroying my dreams. Thanks a lot. Zeitgeist godmonkey.com
Why Bush's popularity is increasing. With all the criticism of his intelligence he certainly makes reasonable decisions... I don't care if it is him or the people he surrounds himself with.
Brian Macy
what's it's like to be a President. (not that I do either).
Imagine that you have to run a country where there are millions of different opinion. Each one of those assumes they are right. He has to make decisions that will affect ALL of us, that's a hell of a lot of pressure. Sure he brought it on himself when he decided to run for Pres. But, god, give the guy some credit. He's not a bumbling idiot like some would suppose, he's not a womanizer like Clinton, he is trying to help our country. He's atleast restoring some respectabilty to the Presidency.
I do not approve of all his decisions, but for the most part I think he's doing fine. He's not a coward at all. Hell, look at Clinton. Lying to attorneys, avoiding the Missle defense issue, not even going this far with the stem cells. To me he was the coward. Atleast Bush is trying to do something.
He's not ever going to please everyone. I respect your opinion, that you are not happy with him. But for God's sake, atleast respect him for trying.
Sean D.
a balanced budget amendment: no defecit spending. Bill Clinton, who added trillions to the debt, was opposed to this.
Measures such as "super majority" which make it difficult to raise taxes.
Massive tax cuts
This would make it harder for them to waste money on pork projects.
I hate GW Bush but I hate Al Gore even more. Who are you going to vote for? Besides, your arguement for the crime difference goes with speculation. Mr. Gore aimed for the Urbanalities while GW Bush aimed for everybody who hated Al Gore. So, naturally, Bush counties are going to have a lower Crime rate than Gore counties(goes with socialism, the more people you put in a smaller area, the more likely they are to kill each other.)
Texas does not rule the world and would die Economically if left to its own.
Just because a bunch of people believe or do something stupid, doesn't make it any less stupid.
it's the same as trying to get a blood transfusion from the guy sitting next to you ... if he doesn't have a matching blood type, you're screwed. when you consider that stem cells may help lead to creating manufactured organs and maybe even manufactured blood (I believe we have this now, but it's not that good) then you start to see where having a lot of genetic variation in the stem cell lines would be helpful. even cures for diseases will be more effective over a wider range of people if stem cells with a wide range of genetics are available.
From my understanding, public, federally funded research, can only be conducted on these existing lines. Any new lines created by private firms cannot be used in federally funded research. Of course, no matter what the gov't decides, private researchers will go and do what they please. They just won't get any money from the feds.
See this article.
I know several individuals working in the scientific/medical community, including some who do work in genetics, and some who work for Govt' organizations like NIH & NCHS.
I can assure you, several of them, religious or otherwise, don't like the idea of unabridged embryo research. I know of some who are dead against it.
Drawing lines and affixing titles will not make this issue go away. Working together will.
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
There are significant limitations on prental consent. For example, parents cannot consent to sexual relations on behalf of their children. In general parental consent does not justify actions that would clearly harm the interests of the child. Roughly speaking the idea of a "trust" is at work in such cases. We assume that parents will pursue the best interests of their children, so we accept their decisions so long as there is no obvious conflict between those decisions and the interests of the child.
This brings us to the heart of the problem. If you think of a fetus as a child then the decision to abort a fetus is in effect a decision to kill a child. This would normally count as a pretty serious breech of trust. Typically parents who attempt to kill their children are deprived of custody, and lose any right that they had to make decisions on behalf of their children. So, while we typically accept parental consent in place of child consent, it seems that we cannot do so in the case of aborted fetuses, because the parents of such fetues are not entitled to custody.
Of course this all depends on whether you think of the fetus as a child, as President Bush does. If you think of the fetus as a tissue sample, or a biopsy, as many pro-choice people are inclined to, then presumably you would also think that the mother has the right to decide what is done with it. This is why the debate over fetus stem-cell research has tended to divide along the same lines as the debate over abortion itself. People on one side view aborted fetuses as victims of murder, and as wards of the state. People on the other side view them as the property of the mother.
Your post worked fine without the tags. Good post, by the way.
The shareholder is always right.
By the way, can anyone confirm the "60 samples" number? One of the guys giving commentary on NPR said it was more like 6.
Those 60 lines are distributed worldwide. According to this article there are less than 10 lines in the US (which if I understand the funding procedures correctly means that THOSE are the ones which will be up for federal funding).
Heh ... I did word that rather poorly.
I meant alive in that killing it would be morally reprehensible. Rather than the literal meaning of alive.
-CrackElf
"Blake is an idealist, Jenna. He cannot afford to think." - Kerr Avon, Star One, Blakes 7
s/dem/the/;
It's not that this line or that is allowed. It's that as a scientific process the WH is determining the processes along which future investigation, unrelated or not, proceeds. So if we collect and use cells using process "A" and we know that process "A-prime" is not allowed then we will never be allowed to use process "A-prime". Consider that cells are used in different ways along the process and it is possible that some point we may be called to do this or that to cells or perform some process to them - but now we can't?!?!
Oh please. Don't lie to us, and don't lie to yourself.
Is it good or evil for me to pour boiling water on your head?
Were the Nazis good or evil?
The rest of your post isn't worth the time of day when you can't even be honest enough to admit that like everyone else you too have ethical categories.
Come back when you're willing to deal with the issue honestly.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
This is not the first time in history that
Christianity has tried to strengthen its
control of people. Christianity had to plagiarize
Paganism to coop people under its rule. When you
realize how vacuous the "Christian" documents are,
it is easier to understand how today's problems are rooted in the hegemony of Christian ideology.
Thank you and have a weekend.
I guess this means that us humans won't have to worry about the "Attack of the Clones" any time soon. *grin*
Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.
Someone else who is interested and quotes Weezer when in doubt. =w=
Anonymous Coward: (n.) 1. nerd at school or library. 2. karmawhore in training. 3. embarrased prep.
Yes, stem cells can come from adults. Interesting article over at Science News (too depressed to search for it myself) said that stem cells can be obtained easily, cheaply, and abundantly from adult fat. I'm ready to contribute.
For geek dads: Contraction Timer
I don't have a soul so I don't have to prove it. You are the one that believes I have a soul, not me. As for being alive, how do you know this. Maybe this is an automated response with some type of AI. You really don't know. I'm not but it is possible. Anyways, how do you expect me to prove it. Send my heart beat through the internet. Really. You have to assume I'm alive because AI is not that great and if I was dead, I wouldn't be talking to you. Since, you also do not have the intellect to understand this, you are begging the question. Never beg the question. That is all.
Just because a bunch of people believe or do something stupid, doesn't make it any less stupid.
Well then, I believe it is ok to kill adults. Please do not stop me because you don't agree.
At some point we all impose our beliefs on someone. Thats what government is, a collection of ideals and beliefs from a collective group. That group may be large (democracy) or small (aristorcracy, communism, etc..).
JOhn
Campaign for Liberty
For the most part I didn't like his decision. I'm definately a very liberal person and vote Green. But the reasons for me not liking this is that I feel that this is going to lead very quickly to more intense research into cloning. When Dolly was created it spurred much controversy.
What I really fear is that the research groups are going to abuse this funding that Bush has given and try to get into actual cloning. No, 5 cells of a human don't constitute human life, but it is the start of human life. Thousands and thousands of dead sheep was the result of failed "Dolly's"...can you imagine that in human form? I hope that the stem cell research only ends in good results. Here's to hoping...
"Time is long and life is short, so begin to live while you still can." -EV
Wow. Bush actually might be smart for once... sort of. He's contradicting himself completely from his campaign, so that looks pretty bad on his record. However, he may be saving a few lives here, which is a definite plus. And for all those of you who have read "Is Our Children Learning?", you know that the author of that book is certain that Dick Cheney did NOT make this desicion! I still can't believe that Bush did something smart. Wow. Wonder if he'll make a speech... then I'll stop babbling about how smart he seems suddenly when he screws up all of his grammar. *slaps himself in the forehead*
Anonymous Coward: (n.) 1. nerd at school or library. 2. karmawhore in training. 3. embarrased prep.
Extreme? Yes. But thought provoking?
When a fully-grown human dies, they have the legal right to allow for their body to be used for medical research/treatment. When a child dies, the parents have the legal right to allow the child's body to be used for medical research/treatment.
If we have a microscopically small cluster of cells, not being used for anything, which is going to be literally flushed, but just so happens to be an embryo, the US government does not want research done on it. Sorry if I seem a bit shady on the details, CNN's recap at 2 am last night never really explained whether this is more of a funding issue or a legal one.
Am I completely missing the point here? Or is my life not considered as valid a form of 'human life' as a 5-day old embryo?
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Many people are NOT pleased as well. Bush knows that the percentage of the American public that actually understands this issue is very small. He can now claim that he is for "saving lives" while at the same time ensuring that the life saving research can't possibly be done to the extent that it should be. It's a highly sanitized and spun political move by a coward too afraid to upset his right-wing base.
I think I'll stop here.
This is a question for the editors: If there is so much potential in stem-cell research (and there is), then why is there a need for federal funding of the research? I would think the medical/pharmaceutical companies would be hopping all over the chance to do the research. And its not like they are cash poor companies. Why should we pour corporate welfare into some of the richest companies around (not that I mind, Ive got a good bit invested in some med/pharm corps).
I find it a bit disturbing that a 250 million dollar federal winfall just fell into the lap of whoever is lucky enough to already have stem cells.
Was there any strong political contributions from the beneficiaries?
I hope whoever has the cells are the smartest and most brilliant scientists available.
Doesn't this limit the amount of brain power that will be applied to the research?
I think it was a potential limiting move all around. All for what, to keep the letter of a campaign promise.
I guess it does matter what the meaning of the word "is" is.
Stem Cells don't come from adults, they are "Adult Stem Cells" i.e. stem cells that are fully developed.
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -- Homer Simpson
I was listening to BBC World Service last night as I was trying to fall asleep. They interviewed an American scientist who basically stated that Dubya had pulled the number 60 out of his ass.
There ARE more than two parties, you know...
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
I'm not sure this applies, but the double effect rule is used to justify euthanizing terminally ill patients. The rule is this it is ethical to pursue a therapy that could lead to the death of a terminal patient if the therapy has some benefit to the patient. An example would be increasing the morphine dose to manage pain, which could cause death. In the case of stem cell harvesting, it seems that if the embryos were created with another purpose in mind, and they are no longer needed for that purpose(and hence would be destroyed) that it is ethical to extract stem cells from these embryos.
My other sig is extremely clever...
your massively ignorant interpretation of her humor and insight is surpassed only by your inbred Texan-ness...
If it's not ethical for the gov't to fund, how is it ethical for business? Unless I'm mistaken, Bush
didn't rule out businesses from harvesting new stem cells. Seems kinda scary to think the profit motive is the deciding factor.
AOL and WWF sucks. What the F*ck is your problem. This republic is made on how much attention you can get for yourself. In other words, money talks. If you don't have the money or the support, you are not likely to get elected. Nader wasn't going to get elected anyways so why bother. I hate Europeans who think all Americans are lazy and retarded. They have no clue about the reality. America has a better economy then nearly every country in the world so we can do whatever we want. It works itself out in the end because we find ways to make our life easier so we have to do less work and we spend more money then we care to talk about because we have it.
If someone doesn't a sporting chance, no one is going to elect them. You don't understand American politics and are not in a position to comment intelligently.
Just because a bunch of people believe or do something stupid, doesn't make it any less stupid.
i bet you and your DNA wielding girlfriend have some pretty interesting dinner table conversations.
Where does life begin ?
Unfortunately, this is the wrong question. Life doesn't "begin" - hasn't for a long time - in fact, I am not absolutely certain if we know when life began. We "know" in a way how amino acids are created (I think that is right - biology is not my strong suit - I am talking about the whole "simulate" conditions of early earth/primordial "soup"), but when, and how they went from that to DNA/RNA (?) to actual cells (bacteria), on up - well, that is still a question, I believe.
Today, on Earth (and possible elsewhere), life just "is" - it is everywhere. Cells don't just spontaneously "generate" - but split to form more - that is the basis of life. However, each and every one of those cells are alive.
No - that isn't the right question. The right question is hard to formulate. It actually is a series of questions:
Can cells feel?
Does a group of cells feel "more"?
What is "feeling"?
How many cells does it take for conciousness to arise?
There are undoubtedly more. I would say cells and cell groups can feel, and move away from "danger" - but I tend to doubt this is done in a "reasoning" fashion (and this word isn't good either - a newborn infant will move away from danger, most of the time - but it is unlikely to be "reasoning" in the common sense of the word). Maybe we don't have words or such to describe it (or maybe _I_ don't)...
Technically, a human "egg" cell is a potential human life, same as a sperm cell - and both cells are alive - each is an individual lifeform. Some would argue that masturbation is akin to abortion (and who knows what they think of menstration). Things are getting murkier with the experiments being undertaken with causing cell fission of an egg and development of an embryo (actually, not an embryo - I think it went to 8 divisions or something) without using a sperm...
I think the most unfortunate thing about all of this is that it seems the general population is against discussing this rationally, and honestly, to the point of really defining things. I think it has something to do with us as a species wanting to think we are special or something - and not just another animal.
Arrogant, to say the least...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Please prove to me that you are a living creature with a soul....you have 10 seconds before I kill you.
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
Like Nader had a real chance. He didn't spend enough money and I had no idea what he believed in. I'm not going to vote somebody if I know very little about them even if I hate the two major candidates.
Just because a bunch of people believe or do something stupid, doesn't make it any less stupid.
If this research leads to a commercially viable cure, why does the gov't have to fund it?
Wouldn't the companies performing the research stand to make $billions? From this research?
When was the last time US government research resulted in a cure that was "given away" to the public at large....it always end up on a drug company's balance sheet.
You, sir, are a moron. Typical American laziness. You don't know what a candidate stands for, and you can't be bothered from your precious AOL and WWF wrestling to find out.
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
Why doesn't the national RTL organization launch a campaign against this? Maybe they have but it just doesn't get media play?
Actually, pro-life forces are often very quiet about where their views lead, since then they'd have to deal with some unpleasant issues.
For example, how about a gang-raped 13-year-old? Too bad kid: you have to carry the baby to term. Morning after pills are out: the egg is often fertilized by this point. Ditto with incest, or medical complications that don't lead directly to death of the mother. Just because the start of the pregnancy is unpleasant doesn't mean that the life created is any less human.
Next, we have to ban many forms of birth control- most all of them save barrier methods. The IUD certainly has to go. Birth control pills should as well: they don't always stop fertilization, and instead cause chemical abortions.
And, of course as you pointed out, fertility clinics have to be shut down.
The serious pro-life forces voice these views, but very quietly. I at least respect them for the courage of their convictions. The mainstream forces hide behind a wall of hypocrisy, claiming they'll allow abortions in cases of rape and incest and not mentioning birth control. Come on folks: act the way you claim to believe.
Eric
(As a side note, I'm speaking as a person who just adopted a beautiful (if cranky) baby boy. It took a long time (~3 years) simply because abortion is legal. I know lots of other people who would still love to adopt, but can't because the kids[1] just aren't there. I know personally one of the sad side effects of legal abortion, but I'm still willing to say I'm pro-choice.)
[1] Actually, there are. Too bad most people aren't willing to adopt them because they're too old and/or too black. The only reason we have Adam is that we were one of the few couples willing to take a biracial child.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Maybe someone can shed some light on this for me. Most opponents to stem cell research state that the 4-5 cells are human life and should not be destroyed. So, they are frozen in fertility clinics waiting to be implanted or destroyed. Since the opponents don't want them destroyed, they remain frozen. Well, what kind of life is that? Frozen in a block of ice? Doesn't sould like a very good life to me. So tell me that it is not really a bad existence because there is no conscience and the cells do not "know" they are frozen... but then if that's the case, what's wrong with distruction in the first place?
Or not ... I will always have the right to complain. From what I remember about Nader's campaign, I didn't agree with him a whole lot either. Laziness is only in the eyes of the beholder. I never said it couldn't happen, look at Jessie Ventura. Anyways, your point is well taken. Ross Perot would've never won and most people voted for him because they didn't like the other two. Who really cares? It's not always Laziness, it is actually caring. I am going to do minimal research outside what the media gives me because I really don't care. My vote practically means nothing in a system where the candidates get voted by the Electoral College instead of the popular vote(not saying the Electoral College is the worse thing in the world.) 1/Several million votes with millions of people who also do not do real research outside the common media is not going to change the outcome of the vote 99.99999% of the time. Majority rules. I'm sorry but this is how it is, not how it should be.
Just because a bunch of people believe or do something stupid, doesn't make it any less stupid.
Strictly speaking, Science is never "sure"
of anything. Science proceeds by attempting to
demonstrate that current theories are incorrect
or incomplete. Gallileo's discovery of the moons
of Jupiter provided evidence that the Earth was
not the center of everything in the universe, and
it was the Religious, not the Scientific, powers
that tortured him until he withdrew his claim.
When will we see the Religious attempt to disprove
their own beliefs?
Do your research on the supposed sixty line of stem cells in use, that is a totally bogus number. There are only two or three useable lines. The sixty he refered to is more like thirty, of which many are unusalbe one adult, ones already found unsualble.
I said it before the election here and now again. The only people Bush and his party care about are the Religous Right and his big business supporters. Every decision in the six months he's been in office when studied those are the only ones to benefit. Bush is all to predictable, and we have a scary three and half years ahead.
Subject says it all. Why does the government (meaning us) have to fund stem cell research, or other kinds of medical research? What will the next 'sliced bread' proejct be?
Just because it COULD be of enormous benefit to mankind (but mostly to special medical interests), let private industry handle it. Federal money means federal strings.
MAybe, if it costs too much, WE CAN'T HAVE IT.
You were asked to *prove* those things, but from the look of your other comments, I'd say you lack the intectual capacity to even come close.
Perhaps this is a poor analogy, but everytime I read about stem cell research/ embryo farms, I think of the "robots" in "The Matrix" who harvested humans for power. To the robots, humans were nothing more than batteries. How is this any different than harvesting embryos for stem cells? Of course, we're uncertain of the moment life begins. Some contend that it isn't life until after birth. Well, my first child was 2.5 months early and he's now a healty 6 year old boy (who loves astronomy and strat-o-matic). Others contend that life begins at conception- typically a Christian sentiment. However, I contend that most people are honestly uncertain. So, is it ethical to enslave *possible* human lives for stem cell production? After all, it seems *fairly*(greater than 1%) probable (given the uncertainties of science) that these are indeed human lives. If you have solid proof to the contrary, I'd love to hear it. My current feelings are ambivalent.
All the Pope said was that Bush should cherish life. But of course, anything that the Pope says will always be opposed in ignorance. No one but God is the author of life, and no one but God has any right to declare any human life to be of less dignity or value than any other, and proceed to dictate its destruction. In embracing such evil, we are no better than the Nazis or Communists.
If you listen to him, you may actually learn something.
This is true, I should have said "lines" rather than "samples." But this has no effect on the point I was making. If private research creates additional lines, there's no reason why public researchers shouldn't be able to benefit from those new lines. No blood on federal hands, and the research still happens. Unless they're going to completely outlaw creating new lines, that's how it's going to wind up.
My deviantArt site
Pope to President: Cherish Life.
What will it take to make a private company part with some of their material for govt. funded research? Will they even do it, or will they charge millions to get a sample? Forcing them to release cells for research smacks of government intervention. It will be interesting to see in the coming weeks and months what it takes to make them release the cells for research.
As a side-note, politically, this is a brilliant move for Dubya.. Scientists get what they want, in a limited aspect, and religionists get what they want, again in a limited aspect. Some people will call it wussing out. I call it compromise, which is exactly what it is.
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
God, I really hate this Star Wars II title.
And that's how the Cheney/Bush administration wants it. The administration's 'compromise' prevents them from looking like the Talaban, and drives research into the 'closed source' labs of private companies (who make bigger campaign contributions than publicly funded academic researchers). It's win/win for them, and loose/loose for all of us in the long run.
Where does life begin ?
Unfortunately, the answer isn't so easy. Some would argue that it's an inviable tissue mass that was going to be thrown away anyway. The other side contents that it is life, and therefore entitled to all rights, protections and privledges.
And just as if this issue wasn't divisive enough, add to this the assertion that use of such cells/lives helps save others who are fully developed cells/lives.
Unfortunately, this is not an issue that's going to be resolved either here in /. or in the press. Moreover, while I understand there is an urgency to save those who are fully developed lives/cells ... I think we need a bit more time to apply the hard answers the simple question before we move on, as the ramifications go far past medical solutions as they trancend deep into the very core of our culture and our values.
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
Folks, As a conservative "right-winger" Christian I am shocked at the amount of name calling and assumptiions made regarding the nature of my beliefs. I cannot speak for all Christians but I can speak for myself and will attempt to do so in this arena . . . and briefly if possible. First: Whether we are pro-life or pro-choice we need to consider ALL the facts surrounding stem cell research. Second: There is not just one source of stem cells as many seem to believe (myself included until recently). We seem to have accepted that stem cells can only come from embryonic or pre-embryonic human tissue, or from post birth by- products (e.g umbilical cord tissue, placenta, etc.). What never seems to be brought up is the fact that stem cells of exacting or similar quality can be extracted from from adults. Third: Adult donors of stem cells undergo an elective procedure which they will survive. There is little controversy in asking for these folks to fill out a form saying, "I donate this unwanted piece of my body." Fourth: The primary source for stem cell research at this point is embryonic or pre-embryonic human tissue. Whether we like it or not what we call that "tissue" fundamentally outlines the battle lines. Both pro-lifers and pro-choicers call this tissue embryonic or pre-embryonic human tissue. Lets be honest for just one moment shall we. The fact that we use the term embryonic or pre-embryonic means that we agree definitionally what that bundle of tissues represents, life itself. Secondly the fact that we have to refer to it as human tissue means that definitionally we are in agreement on a second point of fact, it is a human. We cannot dodge this agreed upon definitional reality; when harvesting embryonic or pre-embryonic human tissue that which it represents ends, a human life. Fifth: When someone in this country uses language like, "Life begins at conception." they are often attacked and labeled a fascist, a hate monger, and other names that I would not dare to print in this forum. Which is odd because this language is often spouted off by those who label themselves as "open minded" and "liberated" and "inclusive". Taking a historic perspective, these are the same liberated minded individuals are those who pushed this country to stop treating children as property that did not have rights until they became members of the majority, 18 years of age. Consider this thought then, those who would say that a child has certain unalienable rights in this country would then refer to a bundle of embryonic and pre-embryonic cells as tissue. Failing to recognize the natural conclusion that began by moving the protection of rights (e.g. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) from the age of majority to the moment of birth, the continued push to move that protection of rights ever closer to moment of conception. Sixth: Statements such as "When will I be arrested for the hundreds I have slain by masturbating?" are just plain inflammitory and silly, though I appreciated the laugh. Whether we like it or not life does not begin until conception. The question then remains whether or not we protect that life by our Faith in God's design for all life, or whether we look to the guarantees of our Constitution to protect its citizens. One definition of that protection has never changed in the course of history. The other has changed considerably since July 4, 1776. As for me I prefer the immutable definition as it lends itself to predictability and protection from the whims of the day. Seventh: A governing fact of this country is that solutions are generally a compromise between two extremes. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said, "When you arrive at the solution that has everyone equally dissatisfied that is the moment to stop looking for compromise." By that definition President Bush did what was politically the single best course of action as a governing representative. Some might ask if I like the decision; I do not. Eighth: Some seem to place importance on whether or not an individual has had an abortion as to whether or not that individual has the right to speak about "pro-life and pro-choice" or stem cell research from a moralistic perspective. I was involved in the decision to have an abortion. That decision 14 years ago is bitter sweet every time my son runs to meet me at the front door with a big grin and screaming "Papa you're home!" So I know from personal experience just what an abortion costs. Ninth: A famous, perhaps apocryphal, medical school question has been: "A women with syphillis addicted to drugs has a child fathered by a drunkard, do you abort the pregnancy?" It was a trick question as it was asking about the parents of Ludwig Von Bethoveen. We are coming perilously close to a day where we will be able to make decision about whether or not a life ceases to save another. The trade-of could likely be ceasing the life of another musical great like Bethoveen to save the life of a Bundy, Kazinski, Berkowitz, Hitler, Mussolini, Green River Killer . . . Tenth: When it comes to the issue of life, in which we play God, can we really trust our own decisions and capabilities as individuals or as a society. Perhaps if it were possible to have the Wisdom of Solomon we could make the right decisions. But then again if you know your bible you know that God said no one else would have that much wisdom. So then we could look society. As a society we cannot drive safely consistently despite our laws, training, policing, etc. Just look at the number of driving accidents, injuries, and fatalities in one newspaper to begin to understand the scope of our inability (in the US at least) to safely perform one simple action, drive from point A to point B. Conclusion: Personally I am all for stem cell research. It appears to be very promising in the treatment of many diseases and ailments. If it provides a cure of Alzheimer's, great! But at the expense of human life as represented by an embryonic or pre-embryonic human, the answer is categorically "no". It becomes an emphatic "no!" when much of the stem cell research performed with embryonic cells is now replicated using adult stem cells. It comes perilously close to a vehement "NO!" whenever we say we can trust the conclusions drawn by individuals and societies. This Anonymous Coward Signs, luvnoth8@yahoo.com Any e-mail filled with intelligence and not virtolic rage will be responded to. Though from past postings it may take a while. Cheers! -jd
Not sentient == not alive. Ever hear of "brain death". Where there are no thoughts, there can be no "murder" for killing that life. E. Coli is "life". A human tumor is "human life". Please unfuck your definitions.
Mr.Phil,
Are you for or against artificial insemination?
I would assume that you are against it because
it 'wastes' embryos. Correct?
Why doesn't the national RTL organization
launch a campaign against this? Maybe they
have but it just doesn't get media play?
I couldn't find any info, but if this is in the
FAQ please point me in the right direction.
Anonymous posts are filtered.
Does this mean if a woman goes in to have an abortion, the clinic will offer her cash for the fetus?
If not, where does the money chain end? The clinic? The Drs. at the clinic? When does something stop being "waste" and start becoming a "scarce raw material"?
Does the sperm donor (male) get any of the money?
I know foreskin waste (from circumcisions) is used to make skin for burn patients, but I don't think the parents of baby/child get any of that money, either.
For example, I'm envisioning a plan for America where the High School Gyms could be converted into "National Fornication and Foetus Harvesting Centers". High school girls could be impregnated and subsequently have their fetuses harvested without the inconvienence, embarassment, cost and (potential danger) of going to the abortion clinics.
This could be a great boost to the faltering economy, provide needed stem cell material for the aging population, and build college funds for those students who choose to participate.
If there is too much public opposition, another approach would be freelancing on ebay, somthing like "L@@K! Fresh Fetus! Low, Low reserve! Bidding starts at $10!"
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Dude, sometimes you just gotta call it like it is. It's not necessarily that people who are smarter are going to have more rights. It's just that they're going to know about them, and know to exercise them, and know how to get the edge over their competition. I have all the sympathy in the world for people who get put in prison (get their rights taken away) because they're over-aggressive, or incapable of working out their problems without breaking the law, or incapable of knowing when to stop. And most of the time, it's because their intelligence has failed them. And there's another whole class of people (I call them scum) who are incredibly intelligent and can get away with murder and whatever else they want to because they have the brains to outmanuver the justice system and their fellow human beings. People sometimes say that civilization has short-circuited evolution, by keeping safe the otherwise unfit to survive. Well, I have on more than one occasion seen how evolution will triumph even in the heart of civilization. I think religious fundamentalists have a problem with evolution because of that sneaking perception -- that the fittest aren't necessarily the most moral. I mean really, do you think of Bill Gates as any kind of example for a real human being to aspire to be? I don't think so. And this whole "meek shall inherit" thing just won't work either. Smarter (and stronger) people will get ahead, and get more of everything a human being craves, because of their level of intelligence. That's why we have governments, and why we occasionally have to fight each other.
What our dear president did last night at 9EST was the worst possible thing that could have happened short of outlawing stem cell research all together. You see what are dear president neglected to mention that of these so called 60 avaliable stem cell lines, only about 14-18 are avaliable in the public sector (i.e. schools, universities, etc.) to researchers that would be able to use the federal funding. All of the other lines are held by private biotech firms which are not required to release them if they don't want to. So in essence all the president did was to monopolize the stem cell industry. Without the ablility for public sector research facilities to make their own lines, all they are able to do is work with the current avaliable ones and furthermore will be forced to pay EXTREME amounts of money for others if they want them. I work in the medical research field and this is absolutly the worst thing that could have happened. As it stands private firms often have the advantage in the research field anyhow, usually having superior facilities, equimpment, and a practically unlimited amount of money. This move by our president has done nothing other than force the public research in this area into completely the wrong direction. Any real advancement in this area will now happen behind closed doors where the public doesn't see what's going on, everything is hush hush, and any real medical advances will end up costing a fortune if found when the big biotech companies offer them on the market. That is assuming that they do offer them on the market, which again they have no obligatoin to do. What the president should have done was eliminate the creation of stem cells from in-vitro fertilization. That's really what this whole argument rested upon to begin with. People are up in arms that "killing" embryos in order to get stem cells is wrong. And although I don't agree with that statment I do see where those people are comming from. However there are other ways to get stem cells. Plecentas, and umbilical cord blood (sorry about the spelling) which are normally discarded after birth are full of stem cells, and techniques are even avaliable that allow adult cells to be transformed into stem cells. However these techniques are no longer avaliable. What our president has done is to put a major slow down on the effictive rate at which we can use stem cells to cure diseases. Myself and nearly all of my collegues (all 750 of us who were at the meeting today) believe that this was the wrong descision and that it should be overturned.
Ivins (note proper spelling, you moron) writes humorous commentary, not "insults and rage" as you claim...
Umm.. the first sentence was supposed to have sarcasm tags around it, but they got stripped out.. doh.. preview..
<SARCASM>Well then, I believe it is ok to kill adults. Please do not stop me because you don't agree.</SARCASM>
JOhn
Campaign for Liberty
A complete ban of embryo research would just keep the research underground, which would create exactly what everybody is afraid of:
- Unregulated research &
- Powerfull knowledge in the wrong hands
Another variation on false dilemma, the line-drawing fallacy, arises when discussing vague concepts: If you cannot draw a line to demonstrate the edge of the concept, it is dismissed as hopelessly unclear (insisting on an unnecessary level of precision). For example, one might bemoan the Constitution's protection against excessive bail, pseudo-arguing that we do not know where to draw the line between excessive and non-excessive amount. (If $10.000 is not excessive, what about $10,001? and so on.)
Logic says that your question is irrelevant.
The only problem I see with that stance is how to escape the conclusion that some humans have more rights than others, due to their consciousness being "superior".
Any thoughts?
Although this is sort of moot for me as I do believe in the concept of the soul, and that human beings are non-deterministic creatures.
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
Something everyone (/. included) seems to be forgetting:
Bush didn't "allow" stem cell research. He doens't have the power to allow or disallow it.
He merely approved federal funding for stem cell research. All this means is that the gov't will throw some cash toward this type of thing, and will therefore put stipulations on the particulars of what it's paying for.
Privately funded research on stem cells can do whatever the hell it wants. Bush's decision has little or no bearing on the legality of this kind of research as a whole.
Every bit I hear, see, and read from the media makes it sound as though the decision to totally ban all stem cell research, or allow all stem cell research is in the hands of the Prez. Um.. No. It doesn't work like that. This whole thing is just about money. Will the gov't pay for it? Bush says yes.
There is no evidence that anything can or could happen from these cells.
Well some scientitists (not "science") think so, so they will test what they "believe" with the scientific method.
Couldn't resist it. Liberals are so dumb.
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
IMHO- all research is good. Those who would oppose ANY advancement of knowldege are not fit for anything other than clearing out minefields. I want Cloning, I want MASSIVE stem cell research, I want the Star Wars budget spent of FTL. It ain't a life until it can survive outside of the mother, period. Neophobes do not qualify as Homo Sapiens in my book. We should treat any who would stand in the way of the slightest possibility of a single scientific discovery with the same fury and terror as those religionists showed against alleged witches and heretics. my rant for the day...
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
I don't care about the moral or immoral 'issues' regarding research. I do care about ANY public funding. We should not look to the government to 'save' us from disease by funding these research projects. W is not 'stifling innovation' as someone claimed in a previous post. If research does not continue it is the fault of scientists, professors, and academia. These are the places where discovery happens. Scientific discovery, innovation do not happen in the white house or in US congress. If scientists are unhappy with the $250 million, It is their chance to step up to the plate, stop complaining, do the research at universities in labs and when they are done, they can say 'See what I have done'.
A question: What power is the president executing by voicing this `decision'? This is something I should know, but I have yet to see any indication in any of the news stories. Is this an executive order? Does the president have some say in the federal budget, and what is that? I seem to have forgotten. Or, rather, is this just the president voicing his opinion (which I don't believe, because it wouldn't be a big deal)?
Can some less politically-challenged person bring me up to date on our government? I seem to have forgotten.
Most likely the #1 Unfunny Meta/Moderator on
While there are hypocrites in every endeavor, I'd like to point out that _if_ life begins that conception, then it is non-negotiable whether it is acceptable to experiment on fetuses. If the fetus represents human life then it is just as horrific to experiment on them (or their body parts) as it was for the Germans during WWII to experiment on their captives.
WRT the idea of "back stem cell research or spend the rest of your life in a wheelchair" - There's no assurance that fetal stem cell research will provide ANY results that will help wheelchair-bound people. This is a red herring.
There are other types of stem cells that show great promise as well as fetal stem-cells. We should experiment there - umbilical cells, adult cells, and others.
I am an avid pro-lifer, and I believe that fetal stem-cell research is not ethical. Other stem-cell research makes a lot of sense and we should pursue it.
The issue of the extant stem lines is a difficult one. That does put us on a slippery slope. After all, if it's ok to use tissue from deceased fetuses, then what about harvesting the product of abortions for the purposes of research. It's not far from there to creation of fetuses for abortions and research. It's true that the fetuses in question are already dead, but the basis of the rejection of prior German research after WWII was that gaining benefit from unethical research was unacceptable.
I don't like the existing fetal stem-cell research part of it, but overall I'm pleased with the president's decision.
Regards,
Anomaly
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
You're exactly right. We've often heard politicians say "I am personally opposed to abortion, but would never want to impose my morality on others."
To see how ridiculous this statement is, just make a small substitution: "I am personally opposed to robbing banks, but would never want to impose my morality on others."
"You Nazis have committed unspeakable acts of utter barbarity against the Jews! By the way, can we see your research files?"
Bush revealed himself as a political opportunist with respect to this issue. This was not a decision made on the basis of any firm moral principles he allegedly holds. If he's pro-life, he sold the store; if he's not, then why any restrictions at all?
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
I don't presume to know the answer -- except that it most certainly does not begin at some abitrarily-chosen point, such as "birth" (which can vary a lot in the case of premature babies), or "beginning of the third trimester."
Therefore, why not give the little buggers the benefit of the doubt and protect them all the way back to conception? It's the only way to be sure.
Considering that's at the centre of the stem cell/ abortion debate, I'd have thought you could have figured it out.
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
This shouldn't have been an issue. It shouldn't have been W's decision.
grep -ri 'should work'
Perhaps your girlfriend could shed some light on this.....watching NBC this am, there was a statement that there were 60 lines *worldwide*, but only 12 in the US. (Sweden mentioned as a place that has lines as well.) Anyone have any info on this? Who controls these lines? While the consensus may be that Bush made the best/most political call in what all might agree was a difficult decision, it seems misleading if he was using a worldwide number to justify his decision. I'd be interested in knowing the accurate numbers and then knowing - did Bush know the accurate numbers when he made his decision, and all the obvious follow-ups to that.
and barbra...
The level of difference between complexity of human minds would be so infintessimal as to make this, really, a moot point. The amount of complexity it takes just to be able to interpret spoken language is staggering. The ability to see 15 moves ahead on a chess board or memorize pi to 10,000 digits doesn't even approach what it takes to simply learn what we call "common sense".
;)
Of course, to go beyond that, in this discussion, we'd have to get into the concepts of existentialism
-= rei =-
*Kid Rock runs for Senate* Democrats: We must run Kid Scissors.
And that's your opinion. Of course, in England we have an easier way, known as "the pill", or for those who wish to go the condom route, "the morning after pill" which when taken within 48 hours of an accidental condom breakage, or whatever, makes a woman damn near infertile (chances of pregnancy very low indeed). Which is a good safety net, but of course you Americans think it's easier to ban this or whatever and make the only option a totally overcomplicated abortion issue. Cretins.
Why stop with just Texas? We should egt rid of everyone south of DC. The biggest mistake this country ever made was winning the Civil War. We should have just let all those inbred bastards secede. Hell, let those fru-fru Californian tree-huggers and movie stars go with them.
frist prosts r kewl
I wondered about that point too. Seems that limiting federal funding to projects that only use those preexisting cell lines is pretty much the same thing as creating artificial scarcity on an otherwise completely abundant resource. I would love to see a well done "follow the money" piece on this angle. I wonder if the intersection of the set of people that will benifit monetarily and the set of people from which W. got advice is nonempty.
(C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.
Embryonic stem cells are fundamentally different from adult or placental stem cells. Research so far indicates that the plasticity of embryonic stem cells is much greater than adult cells. That's why the research community wants to investigate embryonic stem cells.
Bush's decision basically says that the government will only fund research on the 60 existing embryonic lines. According to this article, some of those cell lines are privately owned; it's not clear if there will be general access to those lines. Now, 60 is not a lot of variation to work with. When doing research of this type, you need a large genetic pool to work with. This fundamentally reduces that pool. Bush's decision has bound the hands of scientists looking for cures to horrifyingly deadly diseases.
For those of you who would argue that these embryos are children that need to be protected, check out David Corn's article about that viewpoint.
She sat at the window watching the evening invade the avenue.
The existing stem cell lines are kind of like stolen property.
If the police recover a stolen car and have no way of returning it to the rightful owner, should they destroy it? No, it has value which would just go to waste. The police should use it or sell it.
We just have to be vigilant that using the existing stem cell lines does not create a demand for the destruction of additional embryos (or a mindset that accepts their destruction).
The Senate, in particular Sen. Daschle and the other Democrats, has already made it clear this morning that they will attempt to overturn what is from their point of view a ban. This article in the Washington Post is a fairly liberal take on the decision, and includes some comments by Daschle.
On the other hand, outright permission from the President would have resulted in an equally vicious attack from the Republican-led House of Representatives and conservatives. This article in the Washington Times is a good example of the typical mix of conservative responses.
At least the limited approach the President chose has a chance of standing up against the legislature. Regardless of your personal feelings about the politics or morality of the situation, I believe the President's decision was a fairly balanced approach to an extremely difficult issue.
--Brandon / Split Infinity Music
> If you believe women should have the right to choose abortion,
> you are pro-abortion -- every bit as much as I am pro-Linux because
> I believe everyone should have the right to choose Linux.
You've got a really bad logic flaw going on here, extending acceptance to encouragement. Your analogy breaks down in that you are pro-Linux because you think everyone should be running Linux, not just because it's available as a choice (if you think of Windows users as lesser users because of their choice of OS, you understand the difference). You're pro-abortion when you have or encourage an abortion, not just because you don't force people not to do it. I am pro-choice, but the last time I was in a position to encourage or discourage an abortion, I talked the mother out of it, because that situation warranted it. I still maintain, however, that it was (and should be) her choice in the end.
Virg
Just because the federal gov't is funding research on those 60 lines, can't the private sector continue to experiment on embryos and create new lines, with private funding? Then what happens if new and better lines are created from these private funds, do they just get ignored?
- There already exist some samples of embryonic stem cells from embryos that have been previously harvested.
- Those embryos were harvested by privately-funded researchers (I think).
- Federal funding will go only to researchers working with existing samples.
- Privately-funded researchers will still be free to harvest more embryos.
- Embryos harvested in the future will have the same status as those which have already been harvested today.
- Thus, there's no reason why government-funded researchers couldn't do research on as many new samples as private researchers care to provide. Even if there's not as much private money, it can't cost all that much to cut up some embryos.
If I was against stem-cell research, I'd be pretty pissed at this point.By the way, can anyone confirm the "60 samples" number? One of the guys giving commentary on NPR said it was more like 6.
My deviantArt site
and you still wouldnt be happy because he is GWB
just admit your personal bias and move on.. and maybe leave out the political 'reports' too
It is my understanding that when drug research is partially federally funded, the drug companies doing the research still get patents on their creations. Thus, they can enter a new drug into the market without any short term hope of competition and make tons of mony off of tax payers -- the same tax payers that footed part of the bill for the research! (Again, this is what I've read elsewhere, but may be wrong.)
So, who owns those stem cells? I think its great that there are 60 stem cell ines available, but how available are they? Will you have to buy a license to use some? And after you buy that license, will you be prevented from culturing them yourself to create your own supply or be forced to license more? Will the owners of these lines take a cutt of whatever you find with them?
I think Dubya looked awfully concerned about the whole thing. I just wonder what changes his mind. And while the whole things seems to be a happy medium, what are the missing details?
im a little tired of all this rhetoric about the definition of a human life. life is life...human or otherwise. enough of this human arrogance that somehow we as a species (the one that is screwing things up on this planet at a pretty good pace) have some kind of seniority over other forms of life. im not a whiney liberal, nor am i a puritan. im a scientist that knows you cant make an omlet with breaking a few eggs. we do look at every option...thats why all these stem calls are needed. in the lab i work in, we either harvest our cells (cd34+ cells to be exact) from mouse bone marrow (yes...we murder the poor inocent cute and fuzzy mice...deal with it) or we isolate them from human umbilical cord blood. what all this boils down to is that people want to live forever and people like me are getting payed to try and figure out how to do it. medical science has never saved one life, and it may never. so you have your choice: fund this kind of stuff and then complain about ethics when we find a way to make you live longer (and this whole 200 year old people thing will be another can of worms to open later), or deal with mortality like people have been doing for as long as humans have been on the planet.
"Alot of people don't know what they are doing...and most are pretty good at it." -George Carlin
here speaks a boy who can evidently lose an argument with himself.