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.

Comments

King Solomon?

[Amarok.Org]

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.

Stem cells, etc.

[The Gline]

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.

Political powers in non political situations.

[cybrthng]

I was listening to NPR this morning and both groups, supporters and non supporters say they are happy with the results of Bush's terms. Supporters are happy simply for the fact he didn't nix the whole funding processes, non supporters are happy because they feel no new stems cells will be allowed to be "farmed".

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.

Re:Political powers in non political situations.

[rho]

Would you do what you needed to do to produce stems cells and feel like your killing off an unborn child or would you feel like you are using your natural abilities to produce embryos that will save YOUR PRESENTLY LIVING CHILD???

This is the reason a lot of people oppose human embryo stem cell research. Notice, it's not "no stem-cell research" -- adult, umbilical, and placenta stem cells are fine. It's the idea of creating a life (I do believe it is a human life, no matter the cell count) for the purpose of harvesting stem cells.

I do believe in a slippery slope, and I fear that if this first step is allowed, and stem cells are found to be true saviors for millions of degenerative diseases, there will be people willing to open embryo banks (like current day plasma donation centers) -- donate an egg or sperm, get $50!

Mix in cloning, and it's a short step from there to growing humans for harvesting their organs. It's just like brainwashing -- if you can believe this, you'll soon believe this, then this, and then you'll believe something completely out of character before you know it.

And, unfortunately, the only way we CAN discuss an issue like this is through politics. The government should act to protect the lives of its citizens, it's one of its true functions. If you believe this is a human life, then it deserves protection.

All I know for certain is that this will be a contentious issue for years to come.

Re:Political powers in non political situations.

[edremy]

but science also was sure that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the world was flat and if you got to the edge, you would fall off.

Methinks you're confusing science with religion. Science knew thousands of years ago the world was round, and scholars quickly accepted the copernican solar system. It was religion that tortured people for believing the truth.

Private funds and grants from private groups should be used in this case

This is exactly what both sides don't want. Without federal oversight, you're going to see experiments that simply ignore ethical boundaries- see the various privately funded groups that are currently trying to sell human clones. (It was on NPR last night: $200,000 a shot. The mere fact that they probably can't do it doesn't seem to bother them.)

That doesn't do either side in this debate any good: it tarnishes the real value of the research while at the same time making a mockery of life.

Eric

Wisdom

[Shotgun]

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.

Re:Wisdom

[Tim]

"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."

Except that it doesn't, because it doesn't address the fundamental problems that either side had. The religious extreme still see the embryo research they hate. The scientific community knows very well that the existing stem cell lines are NOT immortal (contrary to what Bush has said) and are NOT sufficiently genetically diverse to do many types of meaningful work. So no, Bush's decision was not a paragon of enlightened decision making and compromise. It was a politically-motivated decision designed to protect his voting constituencies as much as possible.

Yeah, Bush delayed a political nightmare last night (sort of). Big deal--he's a politician, he should be able to do that. You'll have to excuse me if I, and a lot of other thoughtful Americans don't gush with praise over poorly-informed decisions made in the name of political expediency.

I was surprised

[Ender Ryan]

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.

bad precedent?

[tdrury]

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

A pragmatic decision

[Goldenhawk]

The President made the only pragmatic decision possible.

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.

Ownership of the Lines?

[Trinition]

I don't know a lot of details about this area,s o I hope someone can shed more ligth on it. I'll just raise the question. Who owns the 60 lines of stem cells?

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?