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.
"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.
Or was that false?
Free Mac Mini
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?"
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.
"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.
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
> "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.
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?
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
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
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
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
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!
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
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.
Being pro-choice, I wouldn't object if a woman chose to do this herself, but I wouldn't encourage the creation of a market for it.
However, this is a worst-case scenario and somewaht beside the point. If I understand stem cells correctly, they will act like various strains of cancerous cells already used in research. There will be one collection of constantly reproducing stem cells at the supplier. No more original stem cells or fetal tissue will be needed, as long as the main line can be kept undifferentiated and reproducing indefinitely. Laboratories will simply buy cultures off this main supply.
Oh, and as to your "Then why have we never witnessed inter-species evolution". Well, lets see what you call a species. Breeding-independant? How about ones just in recent yeras. We've seen that happen with research fruit-fly strains within the past 50 years. Fireweed strains in about 15. Check out TalkOrigins.org for about 40 or 50 more that have been directly observed just in our lifetimes, let alone in recent fossil history.
Again, you show a poor grasp of the concept of evolution. A species doesn't just change. Its traits slowly change, and in the absense of interbreeding between certain groups, branches. A bonobo doesn't just suddenly lose all its hair and start making swords (though, to be fair to them, they do make flint knives on occasion). Over the course of several hundred thousand to several million years, their traits change slightly. For example, donkeys are about 1-2 million years apart from horses and zebras. It took 2 million years to have such little changes as coat color and some facial features. Smaller species evolve more rapidly - fruit flies being one of the most common breeding species for such studies, are an easy example. In our lives, we've seen even smaller species, such as bacteria, change almost beyond recognition.
-= rei =-
*Kid Rock runs for Senate* Democrats: We must run Kid Scissors.
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
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?