US Stem Cells Contaminated

Croaking Toad writes "According to The Register, US-based scientists using stem cells has hit a brick wall. The stem cells apparently have been contaminated for quite a while with animal proteins rendering them useless in the treatment of human illnesses. New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the USA by a 2001 Executive Order from President Bush." To be precise, stem cell harvesting wasn't outlawed; the usage of federal funding was outlawed. Several states and research institutions have been using their own money to undertake research. The AP coverage is up as well. Update: 01/24 19:40 GMT by J : Carl Zimmer has a fascinating description of the sugars we humans lack that contaminated the stem cell lines. What a curious genetic heritage we have...

Comments

"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the USA"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not true. Federal funding for harvesting embryonic stem cells was cut off. Huge difference.

Private shops can continue as they see fit

[ScentCone]

The executive order related to what could be done with Federal dollars. To leave that out is a huge distortion.

Re:Private shops can continue as they see fit

[drgreg911]

Most research along those lines is done in labs that are, at least in part, federally funded. Might not stop new lines from popping up entirely, but it certainly makes things very difficult.

Re:Private shops can continue as they see fit

[ScentCone]

That association with federal funding has a lot of inertia to it, but the increasingly thorny ethical issues surrounding cloning, genetic manipulation, stem cells, etc., is turning the the Great Ship Research towards more state-based, or privately funded models. It surely takes time, though, for that boat to turn. There's a lot of people entrenched in the grant-money lifestyle.

Re:Private shops can continue as they see fit

[ivan256]

That makes this decision all the better. The current system that allows private companies to profit from research funded with federal grant money is broken. We should stop all such funding until the government gets royalties on discoveries made on it's dime, or until a compulsory license is issued for all patents on inventions discovered using public dollars.

Re:Private shops can continue as they see fit

[hey!]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but this doesn't make sense to me at all.

Federally funded research is funded because it would be to the benefit of the public to have the knowledge it yields. Last time I checked, these private companies were not only part of the public, they are also the primary means through which the public at large receives the benefits of research that can be commercialized.

To forbid private industry from making use of federally research is to deny them the benefits of their own tax dollars. Now, giving exclusive or discriminatory licenses to private industry -- that's a different story.

Re:Private shops can continue as they see fit

[ivan256]

To forbid private industry from making use of federally research is to deny them the benefits of their own tax dollars.

I suggested no such thing. They should be allowed to benefit, but they should not be allowed to profit exclusively. They also should not be allowed to deny other companies/individuals/institutions the benefits of that knowledge.

Re:Private shops can continue as they see fit

[Tsiangkun]

furthermore, the companies should never be allowed to enforce a patent on a discovery made in academia on federal grant money against academic scientist.

Re:Private shops can continue as they see fit

[Whumpsnatz]

Halleluyah! If my money's gonna get poured out to private companies, I want some stock, so we can get some kind of return on it. Of course, your point that there shouldn't be a monopoly is even better.

"hey!" sounds like a Megacorp PR man.

Re:Private shops can continue as they see fit

[Enry]

(I work at a major research university in the US, but I'm IT)

My understanding is that NO federal funds be used to research stem cells. So here's a professor who wants to research stem cells along with his other research he is doing.

But his students get their funding from an NIH grant. Either have to find private funding for them part time, or hire someone new to do it (and find the money).

Same with his equipment. Most came from a federal grant. But some came from private grants. Have to sort out all that paperwork.

Oh right. His desktop machine, where he reads his e-mail, came from the same NIH grant. He has to buy another machine in order to write his papers.

What about the high performance cluster that the university offers? If any of its money came from a grant from the US govt, can't do any kind of biocomputing on it. Have to buy his own cluster if he needs it.

Many instituions that do basic research in the US get a lot of money from the US Govt. to support their research. If the US Govt says "you can't do this with our money", then there's a lot of duplication of effort going on if you want to cut yourself off from it.

Re:Private shops can continue as they see fit

[hey!]

Ah, then I misunderstood you. Now what about patents (I forget the technical term) that derive from the invention in question. That is to say the government invents a widget, and the private company creates an improvement on the widget.

Should the private company be required to license this improvement at no cost? Should it be allowed to patent it at all?

Re:Private shops can continue as they see fit

[Raunch]

>The executive order related to what could be done with Federal dollars. To leave that out is a huge distortion.
Specifially that any reasearcher at an institute, lab, or institute that received federal money could not (on penalty of losing all federal funding) engage in any stem cell research (except the known contaminated lines).

This has (for 99.9% of the labs) the exact same effect, so, no it is not in fact a "huge" distortion. It is minor and trivial at best.

Re:Private shops can continue as they see fit

[tgibbs]

That makes this decision all the better. The current system that allows private companies to profit from research funded with federal grant money is broken. We should stop all such funding until the government gets royalties on discoveries made on it's dime, or until a compulsory license is issued for all patents on inventions discovered using public dollars.

This is one of those things that seems to make sense if you don't really know anything about it. Patents are a lot of trouble and a not inconsiderable expense. So the only reason universities bother to patent discoveries made with federal dollars is because they can license those patents and reap royalties to support more research.

So "compulsory public licensing" = no patents.

But it's worse than that. Companies would much rather invest in something that they hold the patent for. So they tend to pass up discoveries in the public domain in favor of trying to develop their own proprietary approaches. This was the problem that the current system was developed to cure. And much as it may rankle to see a company profiting from federally funded research, it is that very profit motive that ensures that the discovery does get developed.

Re:Private shops can continue as they see fit

[ScentCone]

But not mentioning it robs the discussion of what really counts: it's about funding, not about whether such activity is "lega" or "banned" as so many people erroneously state.

Re:Private shops can continue as they see fit

[lazy genes]

I think you are right.I saw the same type of scam with the human genome project.We pay for the research and in the end all the patents are owned by a few politicians.This is why the price for the cure is equal to the pain and not the production cost of the pill.

Re:Private shops can continue as they see fit

[Grishnakh]

If I understand the patent system correctly, it doesn't matter who invented the original widget. Any significant improvement to an invention is a new invention, and is also patentable. So if company A invents widget X, and company B looks at it, improves the design, and calls it widget Y, company B can get a patent on their design regardless of company A's wishes.

Now how the licensing for all this works out (in the case where patent X has not yet expired), I don't know. But if the government holds a patent for widget X, I think the public should be allowed to use that all they want, royalty-free (after all, we paid for it). But widget Y can be privately licensed, since that is an improvement that was paid for by a private company.

Re:Private shops can continue as they see fit

[jizmonkey]

Boy, you don't remember (or more likely, you weren't born early enough to have known) how much federal research was commercialized before the Bayh-Dole Act, do you? (The answer is: not much.)

A correction.

[analog_line]

New stem cell harvesting paid for with federal funding was prohibited by the executive order. Private and state funding can still be used for that purpose (like the money that California will be pumping into stem cell research).

Re:A correction.

[bluelip]

Actually New Jersey may be the top dog funding stem cell research.

News link

Re:A correction.

[analog_line]

Nope, it's still California, who is allocating triple that amount to stem cell research.

The text of Proposition 71 which proposes a 3 billion dollar bond sale to fund stem cell research in the state. It even says in your linked article that New Jersey isn't trying to outdo California's 3 billion.

Re:A correction.

[bluelip]

The state isn't trying to outdo CA by itself. It is trying to garner support from other entities so the taxpayers won't be footing the whole bill.

I think NJ is heading in the right direction. Let the state be a catalyst and organizer instead of just Mr. Deep Pockets.

Now if tey would only start issuing those "shall issue" permits, life would be grand.

Re:A correction.

[DunbarTheInept]

No, it's a "viral" ban on fedearal funding in much the same way that some software licenses are "viral" licenses. It affects the entire organization it touches. It cuts funding to any ORGANIZATION that uses embyronic stem cells in research from new lines. That would mean that if anyone at a university is doing an experiment with embryonic stem cells, even if that experiment itself is privately funded, then the entire university loses all federal funding, not just the small group doing that one experiment. That's effectively banning it, in practice, because you can't wall off your orgainization enough from other unrelated projects, and so people will make you stop so they don't lose THEIR funding.

Re:A correction.

[pclminion]

Wrong.

Any facility which has ever received federal money (which is 99.9% of them) may not perform stem cell research. Want to do stem cell research? You have to build a new facility, from scratch, using non-federal funds.

That centrifuge from the old bio lab that was used to prepare blood samples from monkeys? You can't use that for stem cell research because it was paid for, back in 1993, from federal grant money.

So you see, this is a de facto ban on all stem cell research, because essentially ALL research facilities have received federal funding of one type or another in the past. In order to legally do the research, you must do everything absolutely, fucking positively from scratch.

Re:A correction.

[monkeydo]

No, you're wrong, and a quick look at the NIH stem cell funding FAQ confirms it.

Re:A correction.

[monkeydo]

Actually it is you who is wrong. The NIH stem cell funding FAQ might help you out.

Q: I am an investigator who receives NIH funding, and I am planning to derive new human embryonic stem cell lines. Can I conduct the derivations in my laboratory, or do I need to find a non-university-funded laboratory to do this work?

A: You may do the derivation in your university laboratory as long as: 1) you carefully and consistently charge all direct costs of doing the derivation to a non-federal funding source and 2) your university or research center has in place a method of allocating the costs of supporting your laboratory so that this activity's appropriate facilities and administrative (F&A) costs are charged to non-federal accounts.

Re:A correction.

[DunbarTheInept]

The wording of the executive order is in 100% direct contradiction to the policy of the NIH in that document. The executive order says that what the NIH is doing is wrong. The executive order says that the organization doing a certain type of research is not federally fundable, and the NIH says those parts of that organization that aren'd doing that kind of research are still federally fundable provided they keep meticulous accounting records that prove none of the federal money is being "slushed" over to the nonfundable research.

Since I can't imagine that the NIH could get away with that if it was against the intent of the executive order, I guess I'll chalk up the difference to the following: The executive order was phrased incorrectly.

The executive order DOES say precisely what I said it says though. It's just that, as usual, Bush does not have good command of English. So what he meant to say doesn't match what he actually said.

Re:A correction.

[pclminion]

Thanks for the clarification. It appears the situation is not as hopeless as it seemed at first...

Re:A correction.

[monkeydo]

The executive order DOES say precisely what I said it says though. It's just that, as usual, Bush does not have good command of English. So what he meant to say doesn't match what he actually said.
Care to produce a quote to back that up?

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[odyrithm]

"As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist" I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines " where the life and death decision has already been made", This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research" without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life."
-- George W. Bush

Just thought I'd help back up the parent there.

Old News

[ackthpt]

Geez, let's discuss old news, shall we? This was discussed by Kerry during the debates. From The Lantern, Oct 25, 2004

The Kerry/Edwards campaign said there are many reasons to explore the possibilities that come with stem cell research: broad bipartisan support from 58 Senators, fewer cell lines available today than in 2001, cell contamination from mouse cells used to help culture some cell lines, lack of cell availability, dated technology, and the loss of U.S. leadership in the area as scientist go overseas to work.

See ya later, Johnny (1925-2005) and thanks for the memories!

Re:Old News

[NaruVonWilkins]

Mod parent up. This is old news, it was on national TV.

Re:Old News

[Raunch]

It has been known since George II made that idiotic mandate that it was a matter of time. Most of the lines were contaminated then. That's why it was phrased as it was, It makes them seem less like authoritarians imposing their corrupt morals wherever they like.

To eliminate some FUD

[Dachannien]

Since the OP didn't seem to bother reading the executive order:

"Federal funds will only be used for research on existing stem cell lines that were derived: (1) with the informed consent of the donors; (2) from excess embryos created solely for reproductive purposes; and (3) without any financial inducements to the donors. In order to ensure that federal funds are used to support only stem cell research that is scientifically sound, legal, and ethical, the NIH will examine the derivation of all existing stem cell lines and create a registry of those lines that satisfy this criteria. More than 60 existing stem cell lines from genetically diverse populations around the world are expected to be available for federally-funded research.

No federal funds will be used for: (1) the derivation or use of stem cell lines derived from newly destroyed embryos; (2) the creation of any human embryos for research purposes; or (3) the cloning of human embryos for any purpose. Today's decision relates only to the use of federal funds for research on existing stem cell lines derived in accordance with the criteria set forth above."

Harvesting of new stem cell lines is not prohibited - a PI merely cannot continue to expect to receive government funding if s/he does so.

Re:To eliminate some FUD

[stupidfoo]

And since everyone is claiming that research using these stems sells will cure every known ailment, the major drug companies should be fighting each other to give money to every last researcher.

Oh wait... they're not? And the $4 billion in funding in California was heavily pushed and lobied for by the private research companies who will be getting the funding?

Re:To eliminate some FUD

[erroneus]

That's a pretty BIG prohibition if you think about it.

It is my understanding that almost all clinical research has potential for Federal funding. Further, even though it may not be used, it's a pretty big deal to be excluded from funding because of the area of research a group or company may have been involved in. I don't know what the current dependence on federal funding is, but even the potential from your operation from being barred from receiving funds is a pretty scary idea. It wasn't necessary to make it against the law while economic sanctions against a company serves that end well enough. It's not like another company can extract the stem cells needed and sell them to a company that DOES get federal funding... they'd likely fall victim to loss of support as well.

So the lack of federal support is actually a pretty big deal whether or not they actually use them.

Re:To eliminate some FUD

[Synbiosis]

Because contrary to popular belief, curing things like paralysis and Alzheimer's disease aren't nearly as profitable as penis pills and cholestrol medications.

Re:To eliminate some FUD

[Nasarius]

You're talking huge amounts of research (read: huge amounts of money) before any useful, practical results are produced. Very few private companies have the resources, let alone the desire to fund such a venture. It costs about $1 billion just to develop a new drug, without radical new technology like stem cells. Much, much more fundamental research is needed before any profits can be made.

Re:To eliminate some FUD

[stupidfoo]

Curing/preventing Alzheimer's disease isn't profitable?

What person, aged 50-80, wouldn't take drugs that would stop them from getting Alzheimer's?

Re:To eliminate some FUD

[Synbiosis]

The vast majority of people who need such a treatment would not be able to afford it. A large portion of these people would have to be paid through social security, further reducing profit margins.
By your logic, Cancer drugs should be extremely profitable because everyone needs them, but they are not. Cancer treatments run into the hundreds of thousands, and most people can't afford them- if they're lucky they'll have health insurance that lasted, and if they're not, companies will get their money on a lay away plan. The biggest reason cancer drugs are being developed is because of the abundant funding.
If you really want to know more about how the drug industry actually works, I'd recommend you read The Truth About Drug Companies. The title may seem off-putting, but virtually all of the information provided in the book is true.

Re:To eliminate some FUD

[drinkypoo]

Unless they could get ownership of the techniques it would only hurt them, because stem cell therapy will have adverse effects on the pharmaceuticals market.

Re:To eliminate some FUD

[Ed Bugg]

Wait a minute. Where are all the libertairian kooks declaring the the free market is the perfect solution to every problem??

I know. They are in a silenced awe at the stem cell kooks who have convinced everyone that stem cells are the solution to every problem.

To date, stem cells seem to be cold fusion with better marketing.

Actually your only talking about Emrbyonic Stem Cells, which have shown to date pretty close to zip in the usefullness category.
Adult Stem Cells on the other hand, has already been used successfully in regrowth of spinal cord injuries, (Read the testimony of Dr. Jean D. Peduzzi-Nelson to a United States Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space at Here ) and many other injuries and diseases.

What seems to be a very well written article on the whole thing (Adult vs Embryonic) that I found while tracking down the above link is over here.
And can you believe, one of the most vocal person I've heard about this was Michael Reagan, son of the late President Ronald Reagan, who died of Alzheimer's Disease, a disease who's name is being thrown around as one of the many that can be cured by "stem cells". Which I whole heartly agree with, just not that it would be Embryonic Stem Cells.

Morals?

[Lil-Bondy]

What ever happened to the whole moral situation on stem cells? was it by-passed while i wasnt looking and its being eluding me? can someone please inform me...

Re:Morals?

[Lil-Bondy]

id better reply to my own post, i found that they harvest the cells from the mothers ubilical cord or something similar

Re:Morals?

[Mr2001]

It was all a big misunderstanding... apparently some people didn't realize that embryonic stem cells come from fertilized eggs in fertility clinics that are just going to be thrown away anyway.

Luckily, as you note, they've all realized their mistake, and now we can all get on to doing research and improving the quality of life for people with serious diseases. ... I wish. *sob*

Re:Morals?

[japhmi]

Many people object to the harvesting of embryonic stem cells due to the fact that the embryo is destroyed in the process. Intentionally killing a human being is bad in their view (even if that human is not legally considered a 'person' under US law).

However, there is no objection to research using adult stem cells, which have many advantages (such as no rejection, no moral objection, and procedures have already been done that actually work). Adult stem cells have the setback of not being able to form any cell in the body, just a lot. Embryonic stem cells have the theoretical potential to become any cell in the body, but the work required to get them to do the right thing (and not become cancerous, not be rejected, etc.) is much higher.

IMHO, we should be focusing our funding on adult stem cells, as they are the most likely to actually work. If some scientists want to work with animal embryonic stem cells, then that would still advance science without the ethical dilemmas.

Incorrect summary

[_Sharp'r_]

"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the USA ..."

The federal government decided not to fund harvesting new stem cells. That's a far cry from "outlawed".

Anyone with the expertise can harvest new stem cells legally in the US, the Feds just won't be giving them grant money to do it.

It's too bad whoever wrote the story didn't even bother to read a couple of paragraphs into their own linked text.

Re:Incorrect summary

[Derling Whirvish]

Interestingly, the government of Quebec has outlawed all embryonic stem cell research that involves the destruction of the embryo. And that ban applies to all researchers, both publicly and privately funded, using new or even old previously extracted, stem cells. You don't hear much about that.

Re:Incorrect summary

[sangreal66]

And embyonic stem cell research funding without federal assistance amounted to exactly how much last year? That's right folks. While the anal hop in the thread real quick every time a stem cell story comes out to point this out they seem to lose their way when you point out that it really is an "effective" ban.

$3,000,000,000 from the state of CA.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[timster]

As I recall it's a little more restrictive than that: federally funded research is not allowed to make any use of any stem cell line other than the pre-existing ones. So they also cannot use new lines that were harvested by someone else.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[diamondsw]

The difference between theory and practice is in theory quite small and in practice quite large. In theory, sure, "private investment" could continue the research, but we all know that's not going to happen.

(apologies for horribly mangled quote)

Now Californias

[big-giant-head]

Now the stem cell research money that Ca. ponied up in thier state question will pay them huge dividends nice.

Good for them

Re:Now Californias

[ivan256]

The word on the street investment wise is that the smart money is already in all the stem cell research companies that have reasonable business plans and have passed technical review. The vast majority of the companies left to fund are the ones that the private dollars passed up.

On the bright side, at least Callifornia has a huge new government jobs program.

Re:Now Californias

[computerme]

and we know how "wise" wall street can be...

Re:Now Californias

[ivan256]

Actually....

In parctice, private dollars usually err on the side of more risk. A tiny percentage of companies that are privately funded succeed, and even the ones that fail represent the best of the companies that go through the investors technical review process. Such a review process typically involves hiring some of the foremost experts in the related field to decide for the investors whether the concepts the company is based on are sound.

Re:Now Californias

[DunbarTheInept]

Private business is very effective at funding things that take a couple of years to become a product. Private business is utterly ineffective at funding things that will take ten years to become a product. Private research aims for the local maxima, and veers away from the global maxima.

Re:Now Californias

[ivan256]

Private business is utterly ineffective at funding things that will take ten years to become a product.

That must be why we have such a shortage of privately funded pharmaceutical companies then?

I can't throw a rock without hitting one around here.

Re:Now Californias

[DunbarTheInept]

They don't do long-term research with no idea yet where it will lead (the 10-year stuff). They let public institutions do that. When it gets to the stage that there is enough information in the science journals to indicate that there are 2 to 3 years left to go before an answer is found, THEN they start getting involved.

And actually, I don't have a problem with this setup. It totally makes sense why it ended up that way. What I do have a problem with is people who don't acknowlege the "shoulders of giants" that the drug companies are standing on top of, and instead discredit them for not producing an end-product.

It's like saying an arc-welding robot is a peice of trash becuase all it produces is an unfinished car frame - something totally useles for public consumption. The real work is done by the spray-paint robot that makes the car sellable.

Re:Now Californias

[quarkscat]

What Bush did with this directive was to use a
tenuous moral rationale (executions and wars
still proceed, so death is not the moral issue).
Effectively, Dubya has raised the (monetary) bar
for entry into stem cell research to allow only
the mega-pharacutical companies to compete, not
unlike making re-importation of USA-manufactured
drugs (for lower cost) illegal. Only the big
drug companies will profit.

What California has done is to create a
"hothouse" environment in which small start-up
companies can compete with the "big boys".
I think this is a very good thing. (Of course,
Dubya comes off as the corporate whore he is,
but that's my opinion.)

This is not news

[DaHat]

This is something that was known, albeit not well known at the time of the executive order. Sadly this fact was not very widely publicized at the time and forces me to wonder why it is big news and such a shock now.

Re:This is not news

[hb253]

For many years, political anti-war activists have been demanding the right to not have their tax dollars used to support "the military-industrial complex", to the point that they just don't pay taxes.

Could be, but in my experience, anyone who doesn't pay (or slightly underpays) taxes and gets caught gets crushed into poverty from fines imposed by the all powerful IRS. Logic would say the actual number of non-payers is miniscule.

Re:This is not news

[DaHat]

I'm sure there were plenty of other posts that warranted your flame much more so than mine. Heck, none of what I said is directly applicable to what you said.

I never said the EO was a law, nor how it relates to private funding, nor embryonic stem cells, nor if it was private.

The more I read what you said and compare it to what I said... the more I see just how ill-informed you are on what I said. I was speaking of course of the issue of the contamination of the existing stem cell lines, not that the order was some how hushed up.

Or, if you cannot do that, at least stop spreading politically-motivated misinformation

If you really want to talk about politically motivated misinformation, I ask that you look in the mirror.
All I said was that I was surprised this was such big news now when the issue of contamination has been well known for a number of years, period. I guess I fail to see how you see political motives in a statement such as that... but then looking at your posting history... you seem to be a well known poster of flamebait and trollish comments... so I am not surprised... this conversation ends here.

On second thought... one last thing... I think you owe me an apology for your ill-informed attempt to bite my head off with your flat out attack me for a stance I did not take... nor even hinted at.

Re:This is not news

[Obfuscant]

I'm sure there were plenty of other posts that warranted your flame

It wasn't a flame, nor was it a "troll", as some misguided moderator seems to think. I quoted the part of your post that was applicable; the part where you said it wasn't well known.

If other parts were not quoted, then I wasn't responding to them. I was, as I said, reviewing the facts surrounding the discussion. I could either post 103 times correcting the same mistakes over and over again, or I could do it once and assume that people who read it would understand what it was.

I was speaking of course of the issue of the contamination of the existing stem cell lines, not that the order was some how hushed up.

Yes, I see now that could be one interpretation of what you wrote, and is probably the one you intended. It all depends on what you refer to by "this" -- and "the executive order" makes sense, since you refer specifically to the executive order.

On second thought... one last thing... I think you owe me an apology for your ill-informed attempt to bite my head off ...

Since, as you acknowledge, most of what I wrote was not directed at anything YOU wrote, you need to stop pretending I was biting YOUR head off. If I didn't say you wrote it, then don't assume I said you wrote it. I'll accept that you intended to say that "the contamination was known but not well known..." and I saw a different interpretation, but as for the apology for biting your head off when I did not, no.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Seoulstriker]

You forgot another important word: human.

The research beginning first on humans simultaneously with animal embryonic stem cells is the first time that I can recall in medical research. The normal research process has animal testing prior to human testing. The idea is that we should invest in learning how the cells are able to differentiate and how the lab can use the process to an advantage in animals. Only after this has been turned into a political issue has the reearch process reversed from animal testing first to human testing first.

Stem cell research not "outlawed."

[friedo]

New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the USA by a 2001 Executive Order from President Bush."

No, it wasn't. Firstly, Executive Orders cannot create law (Youngstown v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952))

But more importantly, the EO in question applies only to research conducted with federal tax money. Private research institutions and some state-funded ones (including several in California and other states) are free to persue their own stem cell lines as they see fit.

Re:Stem cell research not "outlawed."

[Wildfire Darkstar]

Mod parent up. It's an important distinction, given how much of the scientific establishment relies on some degree of federal funding. Most of the organizations who would have the ability and desire to work with embryonic stem cells are prohibited by the EO.

Redundant?

[GojiN]

The federal government decided not to fund harvesting new stem cells. That's a far cry from "outlawed". That's not true. Federal funding for harvesting embryonic stem cells was cut off. Huge difference. The executive order related to what could be done with Federal dollars. To leave that out is a huge distortion. New stem cell harvesting paid for with federal funding was prohibited by the executive order. No. Denied Federal funding, yes. Harvesting of new stem cell lines is not prohibited - a PI merely cannot continue to expect to receive government funding if s/he does so. The federal government decided not to fund harvesting new stem cells. That's a far cry from "outlawed". We get it =\

Re:Redundant?

[GojiN]

The federal government decided not to fund harvesting new stem cells. That's a far cry from "outlawed".

That's not true. Federal funding for harvesting embryonic stem cells was cut off. Huge difference.

The executive order related to what could be done with Federal dollars. To leave that out is a huge distortion.

New stem cell harvesting paid for with federal funding was prohibited by the executive order.

No. Denied Federal funding, yes.

Harvesting of new stem cell lines is not prohibited - a PI merely cannot continue to expect to receive government funding if s/he does so.

The federal government decided not to fund harvesting new stem cells. That's a far cry from "outlawed".

We get it =\ Edit: Sorry, forgot about the
's

This is news?

[Enry]

This was mentioned back in the Presidential debates. Bush said we have X Stem Cell Lines available, while Kerry said that the available lines are contaiminated with mouse DNA and probably other DNA.

Re:This is news?

[deltagreen]

Parent's claim can be found in this transcipt of the second debate: http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004c.html

But let me tell you, point blank, the lines of stem cells that he's made available, every scientist in the country will tell you, "Not adequate," because they're contaminated by mouse cells, and because there aren't 60 or 70 -- they're are only about 11 to 20 now -- and there aren't enough to be able to do the research because they're contaminated.

Embryonic Stem Cells

[Orne]

Last I checked, it was still ok to harvest adult stem cells for research.

Oh, and even if you could harvest any embryonic stem cell in the world, you would still have the "transplantation" immune response problems that you see with those contaminated cells; after all, you are taking the DNA of a human (we can argue if that human was ever "alive" later) and implanting it into another "live" human, you better be sure that your significant proteins match.

Re:Embryonic Stem Cells

[Charvak]

I assume they will take your DNA transplant in the female egg and then the resultant stem cell will match with you.

Re:Embryonic Stem Cells

[Anonymous Coward]

While it's true that there are immune response problems with using straight embryonic stem cell lines as therapeutic cures for genetic diseases, there are ways around it that are being researched. "Deprogramming" is the term used for taking an adult somatic cell and turning it back into a stem cell-like state through environmental influence (aka enucleating the somatic cell and putting the nucleus into another cell that will tell the nucleus that it is a stem cell). This technique is very promising, however, requires that the environment for the cell be of a stem cell-like state, meaning that you take the nucleus out of a somatic cell, put it into an enucleated stem cell, and, voile! you have your very own personalized stem cell, complete with individual VDJ immune markers...Embryonic stem cells are needed, one way or another. The mechanisms of the dedifferentiation is being explored by the lab that I work in as well as other PRIVATELY FUNDED LABS (we have to segregate our equipment, no federally funded equipment can even be used to work on lines that are not CDC, cough, contaminated), however, the specifics are a long way from being figured out. Until then, enjoy cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and paralysis.

Re:Embryonic Stem Cells

[magefile]

It's whether or not purely human ESCs are totipotent or not that is the issue. Transplantation issues can be taken care of, but totipotency cannot. And as long as they're contaminated, getting good (i.e., consistent) results will be difficult.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Valegor]

Bush was the first President to fund stem cell research at all so those saying that he cut funding are not accurate either.

Lemons to Lemonade!

[TyfStar]

"contaminated with animal proteins"??? How is this a bad thing? C'mon scientists, turn poop into poopjuice! (ala Red Meat) We've been needing some research on how to create half-human-half-animals for a while now! I personally am DYING to merge my DNA with a ferrets! And, if they do it successfully, they'll be pulling in money hand-over-fist.. more than enough to go back to their ordinary stem cell research. (anyone else get a flashback of the Batman/Robin series where the cool teens merge their DNA with a snake, puma, etc?) Who needs government funding?? heh.

Re:Lemons to Lemonade!

[erroneus]

Yes indeed! Why have just any old pet Ferret when you can bond with a Ferret that shares your genes!! Think of it? A ferret, not unlike a child, sharing your genetic material... a humorous though intriguing idea... I wouldn't expect to see some hairless ferret running around with a human face or anything but that would be a VERY personal pet.

Re:Lemons to Lemonade!

[narcc]

Ha! what a waste of time and effort. What is really needed -- is a five-assed monkey.

I don't know about antlers

[Nf1nk]

I don't know about antlers, but I have aways thought I would look fetching with a nice pair of rams horns.

Re:I don't know about antlers

[windex]

pix plz.

(For Photoshopping, of course...)

Re:Coincidence?

[essreenim]

Firstly, I think this submission has no place in /. Partly because people generally get modded negatively if they criticise the Republican party. I also think its ironic that a party that is supposedly pro-life could allow this to happen. It is hypocrytical. And make no mistake, they are reponsible for these dead cells...

Whats the difference between dead stem cells and dead fertilized eggs from a woman. And discount potential future life. We're talking about right now. Whats the difference between cells and...more cells?

New lines?

[JCY2K]

Bush said that the lines allowed in the 2001 order, and those that have been being used since would be sufficient. If they are, as it seems, useless then it would stand to logic that new lines are in order. Maybe he will see the light, what can I say except, hope springs eternal.

Re:New lines?

[Tsiangkun]

Stem cells , potentially, could be harvested from unfertilized embryos. PNAS

Of course, it still falls under under the ban on creation of new lines.

Re:New lines?

[Ohreally_factor]

What in the hell is an unfertilized embryo? Is there some extreme subset of pedophillia that is into embryo fucking? Did I miss the embryo bukake fad?

Re:New lines?

[Tsiangkun]

it was a typo, I meant unfertilized egg.

Re:New lines?

[Ohreally_factor]

I figured it was an error. I was just having fun. No harm intended.

New Business Model?

[Pequinino]

1. Stumble across overturned truck of embryos.
2. Negotiate with scientists, making sure to use the phrase, "You're breaking my balls" alot.
3. ?????
4. Profit!

Re:New Business Model?

[Pequinino]

I'm not confusing anything. ;D And, I suppose, no.. you don't really need the ?????, but I think they add flavor. What do you think?

MOD PARENT UP! Animal embryonic stem cells funded

[Seoulstriker]

Animal embryonic stem cells are well funded by the US government. Mod parent insightful!

This is pure FUD

[Noehre]

As much as I would like the federal government to open up funding for embrionic stem cell research, this news post is total crap. The 'contamination' doesn't render the cells useless. The contamination comes from the fact that the medium used to grow cell lines generally contains animal-based serum. This might be a problem in some small subset of experiments, but scientists have been using animal serum for decades. The cells can still be used. Even the referenced article points out that next to nobody is THAT concerned about this.

This gets two big *yawns* up from me.

How about non-scientists stop submitting articles about science topics if they're going to keep insisting on misinterpreting everything?

Re:This is pure FUD

[PIPBoy3000]

I wouldn't say it's pure FUD. The "small subset" of experiments you're referring to are the ones relating to human trials. So yes, you could do experiments to look into cell development and such, but the FDA wouldn't approve any procedure that used these cell lines.

Re:This is pure FUD

[anonicon]

Pardon me? From the story:

"The problem is that current stocks have taken up a "non-human molecule called N-glycolylneuraminic acid or Neu5Gc" - probably when they were grown in a lab culture containing animal-derived materials from mice and calf foetuses. Neu5Gc is found on the surface of animal cells, but the human immune system attacks it - the major reason for transplanted animal organ rejection in humans."

But hey, if you say they're fine, they must be fine. After all, you're posting to Slashdot.

Re:This is pure FUD

[AK Marc]

The 'contamination' doesn't render the cells useless.

The cells will work for lots of things, but are completely useless for some applications. You can't do a human trial with those cells because the contamination would cause rejection, or interfere with determining if the rejection was of the stem cells themselves.

Re:This is pure FUD

[Leo McGarry]

How about non-scientists stop submitting articles about science topics

I'll throw my vote behind that enthusiastically if we can add "in order to advance a political agenda" to the end of your suggestion. Deal?

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Freexe]

Dead babys, as I like to call them :)

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Jeremy Erwin]

The embryonic stem cells have certain desirable biological characteristics, such as pluripotency. In practice, it's somewhat difficult to separate non-federal funding from federal financing. E.g, previous federal grants may have been used to build and equip a laboratory, necessitating the building of separate, redundant facilities.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you even read what you copied? Funding wasn't just cut off for harvesting. It was cut off for any research using newly harvested stem cells.

So, yes, a private company can harvest more cells and give them away, but any researcher who touches them can kiss his funding good bye.

Stem cell harvesting not outlawed.

[Greg@RageNet]

New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the USA by a 2001 Executive Order from President Bush.

This is slashdot, with the journalistic integrity of Dan Rather.. I should not have expected any different.

Stem cell harvesting is not illegal, so harvest away. What you can't do accoring to that 2001 executive order is harvest stem cells and expect the government to pay for it. It's like saying Bush outlawed cars because he won't buy you one.

That's fine with me anyway, it's beyond me why the government pays for reasearch that does not go into the public domain. Let pfizer pay for their own research! They don't need my subsidy.

-- Greg

Re:Stem cell harvesting not outlawed.

[DunbarTheInept]

The executive order does not withold funding from the just harvesters of stem cells. It witholds funding from the entire organization that an experiment using those cells is a part of. In other words, if your university's biochemistry department is doing such an experiment, the entire university can lose funding - including, say, the physics projects, the engineering projects, the biology projects, the chemistry projects, etc. By making that "viral" association, it makes it so that organizations doing this kind of research cannot be part of any larger group. It messes up more groups than just those that people think it does.

Re:Stem cell harvesting not outlawed.

[learn fast]

It's like saying Bush outlawed cars because he won't buy you one.

no, it's like buying a car and you're not allowed to use federally funded roads anymore. Sure, it's not illegal to buy a car, but who would do it? If you do embryonic stem cell research, then your whole operation loses funding, not just that one project. So, sure, it's not banned, per se... just don't expect anyone to do it.

All defenses of this policy rely on not mentioning this little detail.

Re:Stem cell harvesting not outlawed.

[DunbarTheInept]

But the point is this:
This is what people THINK the ban is a ban on, and they have been getting all haughty "correcting" people who say otherwise:
This is only banning the federal funding of this type of research. It can still exist if you fund it privately or if your state funds it.
What the ban is ACTUALLY a ban on:
This is banning any use of this type of research by any federally funded organization, EVEN IF they used private or state funding for the stem cell portion of what that organization does. Let's say that that california state funding for this research is used by a california university. The way this rule is phrased, that university loses ALL of its federal funding for all its projects, and no university would dare do that.

So what's going to happen is that this doesn't just ban federal funding of this research - it's going to effectively ban public dissmetion of the information obtained as well, by ensuring that insular, disconnected private firms are the only people who can engage in it - i.e. drug companies that will consider the information proprietary.

I know someone at work who has a spinal cord injury with no feeling in his legs (motorcycle accident). There is an experimental stem-cell based treatment that has been shown to actually regrow nerves in the spinal cord and reconnect some (not all) feeling in cases like this. It's not a great cure, and it doesn't work all the time, but it's better than not having a chance at all. He's working on a visa to go to Siberia. Becuase the US is so far behind the technology curve on this that he can't have the operation done here.

We're already behind. This law will just ensure we stay that way.

Re:Stem cell harvesting not outlawed.

[Obfuscant]

The executive order does not withold funding from the just harvesters of stem cells. It witholds funding from the entire organization that an experiment using those cells is a part of. In other words, if your university's biochemistry department is doing such an experiment, the entire university can lose funding

That's just patently and deliberately untrue. It does no such thing. Why this lie keeps being repeated is just, well, beyond comprehension.

Re:Stem cell harvesting not outlawed.

[Borderlinebass]

Actually, what you can't do is perform *any* kind of research on new stem cells without having *all* federal funding yanked from whatever organization or institution you're a part of.

Any way you'd like to cut it, that's tantamount to a ban.

And as for that ignorant crack about Dan Rather; most know that what went down there (I.e.. ABC not having the exact letter they used verified, when in the end the "author" admitted to writing a practically identical letter.) and participating in continuing these smears against Dan Rather, given the triviality of the mistake, his most likely limited personal involvement, and the scope of his long career is just a sympton of a fragile, knee-jerk ideology.

Re:Stem cell harvesting not outlawed.

[DunbarTheInept]

deliberately untrue

Pretending to have the ablity to read my mind is itself a form a lying.

Contaminated? All of em?

[dj245]

The stem cells apparently have been contaminated for quite a while with animal proteins rendering them useless in the treatment of human illnesses.

Let the conspiracy theories fly! Surely it was the fundamentalist conservative right wing; or was it the liberal fundamentalist hippie left? Perhaps the Nazis? I'm sure in the end we'll blame it on terrorists.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[eln]

Because the only private donors with the kind of money that's required for this sort of thing are large corporations. Everything large corporations do must be justified by a fairly short term (5 to 10 years max) profit motive. There is no obvious profit motive for stem cell research, and so getting corporations to pony up is near impossible.

The only medical research corporations are willing to fund is the kind of research that will result in fairly quick discoveries of drugs meant to treat, not cure, illness. Curing disease is not profitable. Getting people to take drugs for the rest of their lives to MANAGE illness is extremely profitable.

Cordblood,

[orion41us]

Everyone seems to forget that embryos are not the only sorce of stem cells.... bood from the ambylical cord contain stem cells, these cells are already being harvestead and used to treat spinal cord injuries.... as posted in this Slashdot Artical.

Re:Cordblood,

[vgaphil]

... and diabetes. =)

Re:Cordblood,

[shayneb18]

The problem is that the blood from the ambylical cord contains adult stem cells. Adult stem cells are used for treating some conditions but can only become some types of cells. What is needed is embroynic stem cells which can grow into just about anything in the human body. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell

no biggie

[urbieta]

Still no problem, if they can't operate in the US then just move operations to india, rusia or wherever else they are free to make scientific advances

Re:no biggie

[geoffspear]

No problem. We'll just pick up our huge university hospital and drop it off somewhere else! neener neener!

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[mwlewis]

Perhaps. But then you could just move to California, where they just voted to borrow $3Billion to pay for stem stell research.

Re:A neocon plot to kill repblicans?

[nlper]

Seems the neocons and religious-zealot-conservatives are just using this as a way of stealing the party away from the original republicans who wanted government out of these issues.

OK, I'm stumped. How does a ban on federal funding for new stem cell lines amount to government intruding into these areas?

After all, the classic "original" Republican line has been that abortion is a matter for states and individuals to decide, not the federal government. How is a policy that puts the onus for new stem cell lines on states and private companies so different?

Tyler

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[jayhawk88]

Which is itself a bit of a misleading statement, as stem cell research is a very recent thing. It would be like saying "President Britany Spears III was the first president to fund time travel research" in the year 2145.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[greysky]

The same story ran on dateline NBC last night, and in their "in-depth coverage", they failed to point this out, as well as stating that stems cells are "byproducts from fertility clinics", without mentioning abortions. Regardless of which side of the debate you're on, you have to admit that this is nowhere near in-depth coverage.

Contaminated?

[Anonymous Coward]

From The Corner:

Well, fundamentally it's an effort to make an argument for new stem cell lines, by undermining the viability of all the existing lines, including those federally funded. There's not much new to it, except now it's dressed up in a "new" study, when everyone has always known that these lines (not just the Bush-approved ones, but almost all ES cell lines developed past a certain stage) were developed with so-called mouse feeder cells. To call this "contamination" is simply dishonest. A good number of cell products used in humans are developed with feeder cells from animals, and some of these (not embryonic cells, but other cell products) have been successfully developed into medical treatments in the past.

A couple of key points. First, it is not true that all the Bush-approved lines were developed with these mouse feeder cells. There are sixteen lines (not counted in the LA Times's "20 or so" available lines) that have been frozen in an early state, so as to wait for better cell development techniques. These have never been exposed to mouse feeder cells or any other cells, they are frozen and could be used if these folks had a better method to suggest.

Second, the FDA has a lot of experience dealing with cell products (again, not embryonic stem cell, but others) developed with such animal cells. Then-administrator of the FDA Mark McClellan, in testimony before [the president's bioethics council] in September of 2003 [found here] was asked about the mouse feeder layer issue in embryonic stem cells, and he replied: "We've certainly had experience, successful experience, in thousands of patients in documenting the safety of cells that have been exposed to animal feeder cells, mouse feeder cells, and the like."

This new study strikes me as a partially dishonest repackaging of old worries in an effort to put new pressure on the Bush administration's funding policy. The trouble with it, as with all similar efforts by the researchers, is that the policy is based on a moral conviction, not a scientific assessment. Even if what they are saying were correct, it doesn't change the moral problem with embryonic stem cell research, and so will not change the policy. And from what I can see, it isn't correct either.

Par for the course, alas. What a course!

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[malfunct]

I've been told by people in the profession that this is not true, there are other stem cells that are just as good or better. Its just that they know how to get the embryonic cells and it was cheap. Something like that anyways.

oh geez

[AviLazar]

thank God, Allah, Buddah, Abraham, the Latter Day Saints, Harry Krishnah, and even Brian Boytano i'll be dead by then.

Re:oh geez

[iamacat]

Come on, that's one case where it's not going to help. They'll just come back to when you still living.

Re:oh geez

[Begossi]

the question is, haven't they already?
Maybe disguised as chubby, trashy pop star clones.

Re:oh geez

[Frobozz0]

It's times like these that I ask myself: what would Brian Boytano do?

Re:oh geez

[Fulcrum of Evil]

It's times like these that I ask myself: what would Brian Boytano do?

Fight the evil robot king and save the human race again?

Re:oh geez

[Valegor]

Thanks alot, now I will have that song stuck in my head for the rest of the day.

Re:oh geez

[Wandering Wombat]

You know what, Stuart? I like you.

Re:oh geez

[StikyPad]

Assuming you're even dead by then..

Re:oh geez

[marcansoft]

Then shouldn't they have come back already? Is time already created, our futures predestined, or not? When the time machine is invented and someone changes the past shouldn't we have noticed? Or will just the whole civilization change according to those changes, afterwards? (domino effect) Or will that mean that the past that already existed has changed? Two pasts will have exited but one of them modified to form another one?

Timetravel is downright confusing.

Re:oh geez

[rutledjw]

They're just watching us.

And they're EVERYWHERE

Re:oh geez

[iamacat]

Easy - if someone goes to the past and tries to make some weird changes, like becoming his own father, they can always send someone else to stop him before he enters time machine. They did come back, they were just stopped by timecops :-)

Re:oh geez

[Dabido]

You should have voted for Kudos like the rest of us!

Re:oh geez

[shawb]

Then shouldn't they have come back already?

Not necesarilly... a time machine might be more along the lines of a temporal teleporter. I.E. once a time machine is built, you could send someone forward or backwards through time to another time machine, but not to a period of time before the time machine is invented in the first place. Therefore once the device is fist built, we would have access to all future knowledge, but not necesarilly past knowledge.

That's correct

[FreeUser]

That's not true. Federal funding for harvesting embryonic stem cells was cut off.

That's correct, but also misleading. The executive order banned embryonic stell-cell research by any organization, group, or researcher receiving federal funding.

Not federal funding for stem-cell research. Federal funding for any research, related or not. Nearly every research organization in the country receives federal funding in one form or another. If the lab across campus doing physics has a federal grant, you can't do embryonic stem-cell research (except using the existing, contaminated lines).

The effect is the same as outlawing stem-cell research for 99.9% of all research facilities, a fact the fundies and Republican apologists like to play down or dismiss entirely. However, it doesn't make distortions like those in the summary any less obnoxious or inaccurate. There is at least one entirely privately funded research facility in California that is doing embryonic stem-cell research, our superstitious, less-than-intelligent, ever-so-less-than-competent president notwithstanding.

Re:ahem...

[Aidtopia]

60 Minutes had a piece several weeks ago about the Howard Hughes Medical Foundation. They provide lots of private funding for medical research. And one of the projects they mentioned was the creation of new embryonic stem cell lines for research.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[LordNimon]

Did the Clinton administration receive any requests to fund stem cell research? If it didn't, then your point is meaningless. Maybe stem cell research didn't really exist before Bush became president?

This puts an end to some brain-drain

[Larsie]

The Belgian scientist, Catherine Verfaillie, who was leading the Stem-cell research department of the University of Minnesota is coming back to Belgium because of the whole anti-stem cell research climate in the US and because it is becoming harder and harder to find appropriate funding. If this kind of thing goes on, the US will quickly lose its leading position in some kinds of research. And I think that another four years of Bush might quickly accelerate this trend.

Personally I was hoping...

[PornMaster]

for penis growth through stem cell implantation.

I must be missing the point here...

[TheZax]

Firstly, I think this submission has no place in /. Partly because people generally get modded negatively if they criticise the Republican party.

I must have misinterpreted your statement, because it sounds like your saying that if any article is critical of Bush, that it doesn't belong on Slashdot.

So if I misnterpreted that, here is your chance to correct it...

Re:I must be missing the point here...

[essreenim]

I must have misinterpreted your statement, because it sounds like your saying that if any article is critical of Bush, that it doesn't belong on Slashdot.

Yep, This is what I said:

Firstly, I think this submission has no place in /. Partly because people generally get modded negatively if they criticise the Republican party.

I'll try an be objective. Right it looks like what I'm saying is that in my opinion comments referring negatively to the Republican party ten to get modded negatively. How's that for you? Thats my experience in any case

Please dont bother replying to this becuase I am already regretting replying to you...

Re:I must be missing the point here...

[Valegor]

I have seen FAR more post favoring Bush get modded down than those against him. The anti-Bush movement is rabid on Slashdot, though lately it does seem to be leveling out some. I personally hate Bush myself but I did think he was a better choice than Kerry and I hate to see blanket statements like "He banned stem cell research" that is simply not true. A misleading statement I can handle, an outright false one I cannot.

Re:I must be missing the point here...

[essreenim]

"He banned stem cell research" that is simply not true. A misleading statement I can handle, an outright false one I cannot.

The problem with you is you dont see or dont want to see that if A causes B and B causes C then maybe you shouldn't do A. Do you get it?

Re:I must be missing the point here...

[Valegor]

I never said I agreed with the policy. I am a big supporter of stem cell research and would like to see a much more open funding policy. Denying funding is not banning though. It may lead to an inability for some to do the research, but they still have the potential of doing it if they get the funding. If someone says he underfunded or missfunded stem cell research that is a true statement. If they say that he implimented a policy that is far too restrictive that is opinion, but I would still say that that is also true. If they say that he banned stem cell research however, that is not true. You are letting your politics blind you to a simple concept of truth vs lies. Cause and effect are irrelevant in the case of whether the statement is true or not.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[dpilot]

Is perhaps an appropriate analogy one of Microsoft source code and Open Source programming? In other words, once you've seen Microsoft source code any contribution you make to Open Source may constitute "contamination" and bring threats of legal action to the entire project.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[TheZax]

That's not true. Federal funding for harvesting embryonic stem cells was cut off. Huge difference.

That's not true, Federal funding for any research done on new stem cell lines is denied. It's not just the harvesting. Huge difference.

Correction:

[Meostro]

"...any researcher who touches them can kiss his [Federal] funding good bye."

Very important distinction.

Re:Correction:

[TGK]

no....

"...any researcher who touches them can kiss his [and his entire organization's Federal] funding [for each and every project in that organization] good bye."

A yet more important distinction.

Re:Correction:

[Yanray]

Supporting Stem Cell research is not a death sentence. Possibly for direct funding of small research organizations who are organized to do nothing but stem cell research. Who I admit are doing most of the research. (All be it in hope of being bought out by Microsoft like Drug company)

But if Entities/Organizations who do the funding are targeted then California and Wisconsin Tax Payers are screwed... Federal Funding cut off for research, roads, schools, SS, Medicare....

Even so thier are way's to address this problem. Set up a small "Funding Organization" and funnel federal money into "legal" projects. Then use the same harmless organization to funnel Corporate and State funds into new stem cell line developement. Work around federal rules and regulations, don't try to cut through it.

Politicians have used the same trick for years. It's essentially like funding the Party (or your favorite 527) instead of the canidate. I'd be very surprised if such a (or for that matter many) funding front(s) for stem cell research does not already exist.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Hognoxious]

E.g, previous federal grants may have been used to build and equip a laboratory, necessitating the building of separate, redundant facilities.

Meh. Depreciation is your friend (and so is amortization).

Re:Sort of off topic, but

[edbosanquet]

The president gets a pot of money from Congress spend under the guide lines he chooses. If Congress give the executive branch $100 million for medical research the execurtive branch then chooses who gets the money and what topics get the cash. So the president can simply say I will not spend this money or I will spend this money to research different medical programs. Possibly adult stem cells or cord blood stem cells.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Sheetrock]

The situation might not be that bleak. There are certainly countries that don't see eye-to-eye with the U.S. on this policy, and this particular branch of study has probably become more valuable with America's rejection of this very specific form of stem cell research.

Other countries are already the first option for cutting-edge treatments that haven't yet or won't gain approval in the U.S.; this is yet more business being pushed the way of slightly less scrupulous countries. Perhaps the original research would be too costly to conduct in the U.S., but I wonder if it would be cost-effective to import a viable treatment developed outside the country?

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[terraformer]

And now that they are contaminated, they are useless, so there will be no more federally funded research on human embryonic stem cells. As your quote points out, future lines are off limits. I wonder who knew that and when...

Probably offtopic, but very newsworthy IMHO...

[Lisandro]

...some Argentinian doctors are working on a diabetes treatment using adult stem cells (from the same patient) injected in the pancreas. Apparently a test patient pancreas' subjected to the procedure, which is said to be fairly simple, started to produce insulin again.

I submitted this twice and for some reason it wasn't accepted. Not that i'm holding a grudge, but i have diabetic friends and this is major news for me, and perhaps could change some people minds' about stem cell research (not embryonic stem cell research though, which is a more delicate subject).

Re:Probably offtopic, but very newsworthy IMHO...

[Lisandro]

More info here aswell.

Re:Probably offtopic, but very newsworthy IMHO...

[nhfearme]

This is very encouraging news! I stumbled across this article that backs it up. :)

http://www.globalchange.com/stemcells.htm

No, but to complete your post...

[dpilot]

Kerry also said that there are some 200,000 embryos currently in limbo as a result of IVF. In other words, sperm and eggs were harvested, embryos created and frozen. Some of those embryos were implanted, and resulted in successful babies. The recipients are now known as "complete families" and have no use for the remaining embryos.

To be fair, some of those families may later change their minds and want another child, but by the time the woman passes childbearing age, those frozen embryos are pure, simple ethical dilemnas. Further, with every IVF, the problem accumulates.
Do we keep them frozen forever?
Do we start looking for host mothers just so they can be born?
Who pays for the refrigerator, and what happens if they can't or won't pay? Do we prosecute?

Re:No, but to complete your post...

[TopShelf]

Who pays for the refrigerator, and what happens if they can't or won't pay?

As a parent of three (including twins by IVF), I can tell you that the parents pay for the cryogenic storage of "spare" embryos. My wife and I have 8 embryos on the rocks in a lab, to which we pay ~$400 yearly. Once enough time has passed and we don't plan in implanting them, it's our hope that we could donate the embryos for scientific research.

Donating the embryos to a woman who wants a child is an option, but in reality the circumstances that make embryo adoption the proper choice for a woman (over other reproductive techniques) is so rare that it wouldn't lessen the amount of excess embryos to any significant degree.

Re:No, but to complete your post...

[DavidTC]

Yeah.

While male infertility is usually due to bad sperm, almost all difficulties with women giving birth are the inabilty to carry a pregnancy to term, not to get a fertilized egg.

The idea that we could get people to implant other IVF embryos laying around is silly, but I'm join to ask the next woman who starts yammering about stem cell research to do it.

Re:No, but to complete your post...

[dpilot]

I really only meant the "start looking for host mothers" remark facetiously.

Equally (if not even more) facetiously, how about if we prosecute and try women for having abortions, then sentence them to receive "surplus" IVF embryos...

Re:Republican Response

[flying_monkies]

Hmmm, one of the supporters for California Prop. 71 ($3BN state funded stem cell research) was Schwarzenegger... You know, the Republican governor out here?
If you're going to troll, at least try to do it intelligently.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[dekemoose]

I've almost never seen an appropriate analogy of any kind, and certainly not on Slashdot.

Holy $h!7, the editors are e-d-i-t-i-n-g

[razmaspaz]

To be precise, stem cell harvesting wasn't outlawed; the usage of federal funding was outlawed. Several states and research institutions have been using their own money to undertake research. The AP coverage is up as well.

I didn't know they had it in them, thank you Hemos.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Cutting_Crew]

that right..adult stem cell research is being and has been used to treat cancers of all kinds and has had some very good results. as the OP pointed out, its embryonic that has been banned from being used by federal funds.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Ralph Wiggam]

It's amazing how many people believe that stem cells come from abortions. The religious right does an amazing job of spreading bad information and nobody ever promotes correct information with as much zeal or money.

Stems cells are very much "byproducts from fertility clinics". When married couples pay for in-vitro fertilization, the clinics fertilize many eggs in a lab. After a certain ammount of time, the healthiest embryos are chosen and implanted. The rest of the embryos are destroyed as medical waste. That's it. No abortions. Those embroys were never destined to be born. Why not help people with them?

-B

Re:"Effectively" is almost as good.

[The One and Only]

Should any taxpayer be compelled to pay for scientific research that he is morally opposed to, and that he considers to be murder?

Re:Make G. W. Bush's head spin...

[aredubya74]

I wonder which lobby would have more influence -- corporate or Christian? Right now, I'd say Christian cause the funding is not there.

You'd very likely be wrong. Bush's tax cuts have plainly delivered tens of billions to rich individuals and corporations already (with the deficit climbing precipitously largely due to these changes). His various regulatory policymakers have made it easier for polluters to pollute and tax cheaters to cheat.

As for policies that would suit the Falwell/Dobson wing of the Christian Right...hmm, the fed. money stem cell research is one small step. Partial birth abortion ban would be another small one. But he couldn't even begin to get "marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman" enacted as a Constitutional amendment (died on both chamber floors), and recently declared the federal DOMA ("Defense of Marriage Act") law would be sufficient to stop gay marriage, while it obviously isn't (states' rights, people, states' rights). And what's he starting with this term? An abortion ban? Nope, Social Security privitization, a boondoggle for brokerage houses, not the Christian Right. He may serve two masters (the moral conservatives and the fiscal conservatives), but he knows who's gonna cut the check.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[AK Marc]

Bush was the first President to fund stem cell research at all so those saying that he cut funding are not accurate either.

That is a campaign speech lie. He was not the first president to fund stem cell research. Under previous presidents, stem cell research was undertaken with federal funds for that purpose. However, to prevent controversy, they projects were labled "paralysis research" or such.

So, Bush was *not* the first president to fund stem cell research. He was the first to say that it was ok to call stem cell research "stem cell research" on the grant application.

Stem Cell Research Facts

[jgardn]

Yes. In fact, recent studies are showing the stem cells extracted from fat cells or even from hair cells (you know, the white thing at the end of the hair follicle you pull out) are a great source of stem cells. These stem cells are also more tame and easier to control than embryonic stem cells.

I really hate it when somebody says President Bush is against stem cell research. He's not. He's against harvesting embryonic stem cells. He's even funding already harvested embryonic stem cell research, as the parent posters pointed out.

I also hate it when people say stem cells can cure disease X. It isn't true, yet. Stem cells have yet to cure anything. If stem cells could cure diabetes or paralysis or brain damage or nerve damage, don't you think you'd hear a lot more about it in the press? Don't you think there would be advertisements on the radio asking for people with disease X to participate in a research project using stem cells? But you don't. That's because stem cells have yet to produce anything. Some researchers are beginning to fear that stem cells are just too hard to control and useful remedies won't be out for decades or even centuries.

There are other more promising routes of research. For instance, the Atkin's diet has been proven to lower blood cholesterol and to reduce the severity of diabetes. Why aren't we spending as much money on that as we are on stem cell research?

This whole stem cell fiasco has been a hammer to pound President Bush on the head, and I think every sane human out there has seen it for what it is. "Christopher Reeves died because of President Bush" just doesn't ring of truth at all. Let's stop politicizing science and just approach it with objectivity and skepticism for once, folks. And please, when science starts stretching the bounds of morality, let's make the right decision to limit science and not limit morality. That's what makes us different from the research that German and Japanese scientists did in WWII.

Re:Stem Cell Research Facts

[anagama]

• There are other more promising routes of research. For instance, the Atkin's diet has been proven to lower blood cholesterol and to reduce the severity of diabetes. Why aren't we spending as much money on that as we are on stem cell research?

Well ... there's no need really with millions of people making themselves guinnea pigs.

Re:Stem Cell Research Facts

[Lumpy]

That's what makes us different from the research that German and Japanese scientists did in WWII.

um no, we did it first in the settling of this land....

one
two
three

we certianly are sick and twisted people that do evil just as well as the others.

Re:Stem Cell Research Facts

[InfoVore]

This whole stem cell fiasco has been a hammer to pound President Bush on the head, and I think every sane human out there has seen it for what it is

Yes Bush is being hammered on this issue, and rightfully so IMHO. I do not think that is the purpose of the issue, though. This is a complicated issue with many diverse opinions. Implying that only the people who agree with you are sane is an example of why we aren't finding a common ground. Leave the rhetoric out of it, please.

Let's stop politicizing science and just approach it with objectivity and skepticism for once, folks.

Agreed. Unfortunately, the issue is considered a moral issue for many, which makes it both a) political b) impossible to keep objective. By its very nature it is a subjective debate. Remember that it was President Bush who first politicized the issue on a national level by banning federal funding of new fetal stem cell lines. It was brilliant political strategy. It is a polarizing issue and one that plays to the neo-cons political strengths.

And please, when science starts stretching the bounds of morality, let's make the right decision to limit science and not limit morality.

That should be the whole point of the debate. Science has always stretched the boundaries of morality. Usually there is a furor, then acceptance, then a moving on to the next boundary. Ask Galileo, Darwin, etc. What scares many of us,is that many sincere people think of morality as an Absolute delivered from on high, and not a growing and changing societal standard.

That's what makes us different from the research that German and Japanese scientists did in WWII.

Congratulations, you have just activated Godwin's Law. You lose.

I.V.

Re:Stem Cell Research Facts

[nimblebrain]

Unless something really recent has come up, the 'stem cells' to which you are referring are stem cells only for that kind of tissue. The great interest in embryonic stem cells is that they are pluripotent, i.e. able to specialize into other kinds of stem cells, then finally into cells of the target tissue.

Interestingly, though, you can't just inject pluripotent stem cells somewhere, because they will differentiate into multiple kinds of tissue ('teratomas') on the spot - they need to be coaxed into the specific kind of tissue.

One of the troubles with the existing stem cell lines is that they were grown on mouse fibroblast mats as a matter of course. Good for research, but bad for using for therapeutic use.

I highly recommend Kiessling's Human Embryonic Stem Cells book to show the state of research as of a year and a bit ago.

Point on Atkins well-taken. Lost 30 lbs off that myself :)

Actually, I see the time for using embryonic stem cells will be a relatively short chapter in the overall research effort. Research is required to figure out how they work - so that we can find out why techniques like implanting adult nuclei in eggs work on occasion, but are so hit-and-miss (mostly miss).

-- Ritchie

Why The War Over Stem Cells

[Effugas]

It really comes down to this: "Imagine if abortion saved lives."

There's an astonishing report out of China; it can be read here. (The story, already quite poignant, is made even more so by the realization that the author is himself tetraplegic and is considering the procedure himself.) Essentially, the Chinese have already abandoned stem cells, and have moved onto nasal cells from four month old fetuses. They're working. Read this:

His patients - foreign and Chinese - and their families appear to adore him, and to accept what he does with foetuses. Huang has already operated on 500 people. Every month, at least a dozen more fly in. He gets hundreds of new inquiries a week and his waiting list for foreigners now stretches until next December. So many Chinese patients have asked for treatment that he says he could be busy for 10 years, even though he has trained at least five other doctors in the procedure.

"We need 100 more Dr Huangs," says Laura Jackson's father Daryl. "And we need more cells. It's a different government over here. They have to trim the population. There are 15 to 20 million abortions in China a year. If everyone who was aborted could save a life, there would be no sick people left in the world." Golden's Christian wife, Debbie, also sees Huang as an idealist - particularly in comparison to the US doctors who charged her husband almost $1m, but were able only to make him more comfortable in his wheelchair.

"In the US it's totally about money, but China is more ethical," she says. "They work harder. I'm American, so that is very hard to say.

"I don't agree with abortion, but it will happen anyway. In the US, we do abortions but don't use the cells. In China, they don't just take life and destroy it - they give something back. It's like lemonade out of lemons. You take something bad and you make it good." Such reasoning requires a moral somersault, but it is one that can be done easily in China. That is enough to generate hope.

Self-preservation is the strongest instinct, and morality will inexorably be rewritten to allow whatever is required to survive. This is ultimately what will end the abortion wars, and pro-lifers are horrified at this (likely) endgame.

Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells

[Politburo]

Very interesting. One thing that really stood out was this gem:

"They have to trim the population... If everyone who was aborted could save a life, there would be no sick people left in the world."

I guess this woman doesn't realize that sickness also trims the population?

Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells

[tcopeland]

> Self-preservation is the strongest instinct

Then why do people commit suicide?

> morality will inexorably be rewritten to
> allow whatever is required to survive.

What evidence do you have to support this assertion?

Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells

[ericzundel]

Dr Huang is pretty famous, and famously evasive about following up on patients that have gone through his procedures. MIT's Technology Review has a subscribers-only article about Dr Huang. Basically, the criticism is that he is providing a theraputic procedure that has not really been studied, and he refuses to study the long term results. Although his techniques may have benefits, this is not regarded as the best that stem cell research has to offer.

Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells

[Effugas]

> Then why do people commit suicide?

That's like asking why the body gets cancer when that's clearly not a healthy thing to get.

>> morality will inexorably be rewritten to
>> allow whatever is required to survive.

>What evidence do you have to support this assertion?

Survival is _constantly_ rewriting morality. It's wrong to kill someone, it's right to protect yourself, it's more right to protect yourself than it is wrong to kill. This applies to ourselves, this applies to our families, this applies to our nations. Some time ago, there was this awful event in Saudi Arabia when a fire broke out in a girl's school. All the students ran out, but were forced back in by the Madrassa's -- enforcers from the Department For Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice -- as the girls weren't sufficiently covered to be seen in public.

Many died. Presumably, the morality police had their rules "clarified".

Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells

[bigpat]

"I guess this woman doesn't realize that sickness also trims the population?"

To a corporate state sick adults represent a loss of investment, but people that die as infants or fetus' represent very little loss to the state. Ideally people would be kept healthy at a minimum of cost until they reach an age at which they are no longer useful, then they would die quickly. Much like the cells of your body, dead cells can often be reabsorbed, but damaged cells continue on taking up space, using your body's resources and not doing their part.

Keeping your slaves... workers healthy is an important part of "socialism".

Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells

[tcopeland]

> That's like asking why the body gets cancer

I'm not sure that I follow this analogy. I think you're saying that behavior which opposes our self-preservation instinct is a temporary anomaly. Is that right?

> Survival is _constantly_ rewriting morality

Did you mean "society is [...]"?

> Presumably, the morality police had their
> rules "clarified".

Hm. I guess I'm not sure what morality is being rewritten in this case. I mean, suppose nothing happened to the "morality police". Would their actions still be wrong?

Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells

[Effugas]

You may be correct that solutions will be found that do not involve abortion -- but they will not come first, and faced with the choice between "living in a glass coffin" and accepting something that's already controversial...

Look at the end game. "Abortion cured my Alzheimers." "I wasn't ready to have a child, but I was ready to save a life!" That kind of thinking ends the war. Sure, you'll have boutique procedures developed for those who want to remain ethically pure, but they'll initially be less effective than "the real thing".

And what happens when kids become involved? It's one thing to refuse treatment for yourself, but for your child? Even if you do refuse the treatment, should the state respect your will, given that it's clearly not in the best interest of the child? We've already seen some of this with those sects that refuse blood transfusions, or even any modern medical treatment on their children.

The only X-Factor is if the first cure from stem cells comes from an ethically sound source (adult cells, mainly). I don't expect this, but it's not impossible. If it happens, fetal sources would be put on the defensive -- if it was so much better, why didn't it have the first cure?

Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells

[Effugas]

> I'm not sure that I follow this analogy. I think you're saying that behavior which opposes our self-preservation instinct is a temporary anomaly. Is that right?

First of all, not all suicidal behavior opposes our self-preservation instinct. The soldier who jumps on a live grenade to save his buddies is appealing to a greater sense of survival, as does the man who risks his life to save his family.

But the suicide you're probably thinking of is borne of despondance and hopelessness. These are aspects of depression. Drawing conclusions about human nature based on a depressed individual is a little like drawing conclusions on cell division based on a cancerous tumor; we're _not_ supposed to work that way.

>> Survival is _constantly_ rewriting morality

>Did you mean "society is [...]"?

No. I mean the need for survival rewrites things that get in its way. The law can say what it likes; if my choice is life in jail or the death of my child, most people will go for the former.

>Hm. I guess I'm not sure what morality is being rewritten in this case. I mean, suppose nothing happened to the "morality police". Would their actions still be wrong?

You're not understanding. We know what they did was immoral _because_ the girls didn't survive. It was so blatantly obvious that not even those tasked with defining morality for the society could stand against the outrage.

Now, imagine there's a six year old girl who will die unless she's given cells from a four month old fetus that was aborted anyway. Imagine her mom refuses, for religious reasons. What happens?

Do you see the endgame? Do you see why they're fighting the development of cures so desperately?

Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells

[tcopeland]

> The soldier who jumps on a live grenade

Hm. But that's not _self_ preservation... that's more of a "preservation of mankind" sort of thing. If a fellow is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of mankind, that seems a bit different than being willing to sacrifice mankind for the good of himself.

> the suicide you're probably thinking of is
> borne of despondance

Yup, right on.

> The law can say what it likes; if my choice
> is life in jail or the death of my child,
> most people will go for the former.

Right... yes. But I'm not sure how often that choice arises... I guess I'm not sure how that sentence supports "the need for survival rewriting things that get in its way".

> What happens?

To pose a related thought experiment, suppose a woman has a choice to abort a baby and knows that aborting the baby may result in medical benefits for someone else. Now she has even less of a reason to spare her child's life.

> Do you see why they're fighting the
> development of cures so desperately?

Yes. They're fighting the use of embryonic stem cells because they believe humans are an end, not a mean to an end.

Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells

[tcopeland]

> Humans aren't rulled by instincts.

I agree.

> anything where you trample on someone to
> get an advantage

Hm. Folks who steal food usually don't deny morality; instead they assert a greater moral good (their survival) over a lesser one (property ownership). This isn't rewriting morality, it's studying it.

Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells

[tcopeland]

> We know what they did was immoral _because_
> the girls didn't survive.

Hm. So, anything that causes death is immoral, is that right? Doesn't that deny the moral good of a soldier throwing himself on a grenade?

Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells

[Effugas]

> Hm. But that's not _self_ preservation... that's more of a "preservation of mankind" sort of thing.

They're related. From an evolutionary-biology point of view, we're the children of people who died for one another. Alot of military acculturation is about getting people to be willing to extend their sense of self to others.

It's not so abstract when you consider protecting your child, especially not genetically.

>Right... yes. But I'm not sure how often that choice arises... I guess I'm not sure how that sentence supports "the need for survival rewriting things that get in its way".

War is a pretty huge rewriting. Mostly I'm making reference to the fact that survival is a shockingly potent trump card.

> To pose a related thought experiment, suppose a woman has a choice to abort a baby and knows that aborting the baby may result in medical benefits for someone else. Now she has even less of a reason to spare her child's life.

Thus the desperate fight to prevent a cure (at least, a publically accessible one; the elite want the research to happen somewhere so they themselves can be treated.)

> Yes. They're fighting the use of embryonic stem cells because they believe humans are an end, not a mean to an end.

And this gets resolved by taking the position that it's not a human yet. C'mon, there's lots of people who already think that, and this way Grandpa won't suffer from Alzheimers. You like Grandpa, don't you?

Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells

[Effugas]

> Hm. So, anything that causes death is immoral, is that right? Doesn't that deny the moral good of a soldier throwing himself on a grenade?

The soldier's death is accepted and praised because it contributed to the survival of other people. If he'd thrown himself on a grenade to protect a tree, we'd consider him a fool. If he'd been ordered to throw himself on the grenade to protect that tree, we'd accept him refusing, despite the deep moral duty a soldier has to follow orders.

Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells

[Effugas]

>Folks who steal food usually don't deny morality; instead they assert a greater moral good (their survival) over a lesser one (property ownership). This isn't rewriting morality, it's studying it.

No, it's totally rewriting morality. You have a choice when you do something immoral:

1) Deny morality -- there's no such thing, I do what I want.
2) Rewrite morality -- Maybe this is normally wrong, but I would have starved otherwise, so it can't be wrong, because morality can't tell me I have to die.

Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells

[tcopeland]

> They're related

They're related, perhaps, but they frequently conflict.

> Mostly I'm making reference to the fact that
> survival is a shockingly potent trump card.

Hm. That's well said, and I can't think of any good rejoinders :-)

> this gets resolved by taking the position
> that it's not a human yet.

True, although taking that position doesn't make it valid.

> You like Grandpa, don't you?

Curses - you've played the other trump card :-)

Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells

[tcopeland]

If he had grabbed a fellow soldier and hurled him on the grenade, I bet he'd be court martialed for murder. And his plea that "by sacrificing this one fellow, I saved the lives of the rest of the squad" would not get him very far.

Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells

[tcopeland]

> 2) Rewrite morality -- Maybe this is normally
> wrong, but I would have starved otherwise,
> so it can't be wrong, because morality can't
> tell me I have to die.

I think we may be in violent agreement here. You're saying the above constitutes "totally rewriting morality", I'm saying the above constitutes determining which is the greater moral good.

Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells

[jafac]

To a corporate state sick adults represent a loss of investment,

Not if those sick adults have bank accounts stuffed with cash (like retirement funds).

Then those sick adults are *customers* for costly treatment of their symptoms (not cures for the underlying cause, of course, silly).

Just factor in the brib- er, "campaign contributions" for lawsuit bann- er, "tort reform", and officials looking the other wa- er, "deregulation", and you've got a recipie for: 5) PROFIT!!!!

Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells

[jafac]

.....because they believe humans are an end, not a mean to an end.

BAH and BULLSHIT.
Humans are just as much a Means to an End for the Religious Right as for anyone else.

It's all about POWER to the Religious Right.
"Be fruitful and multiply" anyone? So the members of their religion outnumber the members of competing religions, so that when the inevitable holy war comes, they'll have the numerical advantage (which has paid off well for Red Staters - they've simply out-bred the Blue Staters - and this is essentially WHY Israel isn't going to give voting rights to the Palestinians, because they know damn well they'll be out-bred in two generations).

A real "culture of life". yeah right.

In High School biology, we did this experiment, with growth media, yeast, and a sealed test tube. The population of the yeast did very well, and multiplied geometrically, and things looked good because they had plenty of growth media for the forseeable future.

Until they choked on their own filth, (alcohol) and they all died.

Yeast clearly aren't very smart.
Are human beings?

Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells

[Fly]

STOP IT already. Embryonic stems cells do not need to come from abortions. A typical source is leftover blastocysts from IVF treatments. Misinformed people who mistakenly associate embryonic stem cells with abortion helped sway the election in the U.S. even. If you want to call a leftover fifty-cell blastocyst a baby so in order to support the embryonic stem cells = abortion claim, that's fine. I think you're wrong though.

Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells

[Effugas]

Yup. Suicide missions are illegal in western militaries. Soldiers react much differently to a heavy chance of death vs. a guaranteed chance of death.

Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells

[tcopeland]

> Yeast clearly aren't very smart.

Correct.

> Are human beings?

Some are smarter than others. But each person is created in the image of God and is worthy of respect.

Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells

[AK Marc]

They're fighting the use of embryonic stem cells because they believe humans are an end, not a mean to an end.

You obviously don't pay any attention to the people that are most vocal in opposing stem cells. They obviously think of other humans as a means to an end.

But, as an aside, do you think it makes the world a better place to force a woman to bear and raise a child she never wanted to grow up abandoned and abused, or to give her the choice to end the pregnancy? Unfortunately, all sorts of people that would never adopt a baby, let alone a baby of a different ethnicity, claim it is a choice of adoption or abortion, when it isn't. The practical choice is between the two I presented.

Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells

[tcopeland]

> in western militaries

I wonder if middle eastern countries have a policy about this? I mean, Islam teaches that dying while killing an infidel gets you to Janaah, so... hm. Dunno.

I spent 5 years in the Coast Guard and was told that the days of "you have to go out but you don't have to come back" are over. Now "you have to go out _and_ you have to come back!"

Hey, you're Dan Kaminsky! Nice article here.

Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells

[tcopeland]

> force a woman to bear and raise a child
> she never wanted

Ah, but that's just the rub. Once the child is there, it's not our place to end that life. If the child grows up and is miserable, that'd be a bummer... but to end a life because it might be a sad one, yikes.

Along the same lines, I used to be a big capital punishment fan, but now I'm not. I'm not sure if it's our responsibility to end a life that God may well use to honor Him in some way we haven't foreseen.

> all sorts of people that would never
> adopt a baby

I hear tell that there are long lines of folks waiting to adopt. But I have no figures to back that up, so, word.

> The practical choice is between the
> two I presented.

Well.... another possibility is that the child, albeit initially unwanted, will grow up and be a happy fellow. Or perhaps the mom, upon seeing the sweet little tyke, will decide that she wants him after all.

Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells

[Curunir_wolf]

It's all about POWER to the Religious Right. "Be fruitful and multiply" anyone? So the members of their religion outnumber the members of competing religions, so that when the inevitable holy war comes, they'll have the numerical advantage ...

This is the most rampantly paranoid load of crap I've ever seen. Congratulations.

...(which has paid off well for Red Staters - they've simply out-bred the Blue Staters...

Bzzzt! Dumb answer #1. Red (rural) states have grown faster then blue ones due to emigration from the cities to the rural areas.

...- and this is essentially WHY Israel isn't going to give voting rights to the Palestinians, because they know damn well they'll be out-bred in two generations).

Sort of. Israel is not going to cede "right of return" to Palestinians (and their offspring), because they ALREADY outnumber the Isralis, and will quickly vote the jews out of office, and set up a fundamentalist Islamic government.

In High School biology, we did this experiment, with growth media, yeast, and a sealed test tube. The population of the yeast did very well, and multiplied geometrically, and things looked good because they had plenty of growth media for the forseeable future.

Until they choked on their own filth, (alcohol) and they all died.

You must not remember the experiment right. Yeast can tolerate an ungodly amount of alcohol and they are doing so in the bucket sitting behind me right now. They will go dormant when they run out of sugar, or the temperature gets too low. I'll add a little sugar to the bottles at that time, and they will wake up long enough to carbonate the beer. Mmmm.

Yeast clearly aren't very smart. Are human beings?

Maybe. They do eventually learn "don't shit where you eat", and follow it pretty well for the most part.

Which is why there are so many of them leaving all the filth behind in the big cities and moving somewhere where they can breath and not choke on it.

Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells

[Curunir_wolf]

Properly formatted

It's all about POWER to the Religious Right. "Be fruitful and multiply" anyone? So the members of their religion outnumber the members of competing religions, so that when the inevitable holy war comes, they'll have the numerical advantage ...

This is the most rampantly paranoid load of crap I've ever seen. Congratulations.

...(which has paid off well for Red Staters - they've simply out-bred the Blue Staters...

Bzzzt! Dumb answer #1. Red (rural) states have grown faster then blue ones due to emigration from the cities to the rural areas.

...- and this is essentially WHY Israel isn't going to give voting rights to the Palestinians, because they know damn well they'll be out-bred in two generations).

Sort of. Israel is not going to cede "right of return" to Palestinians (and their offspring), because they ALREADY outnumber the Isralis, and will quickly vote the jews out of office, and set up a fundamentalist Islamic government.

In High School biology, we did this experiment, with growth media, yeast, and a sealed test tube. The population of the yeast did very well, and multiplied geometrically, and things looked good because they had plenty of growth media for the forseeable future.

Until they choked on their own filth, (alcohol) and they all died.

You must not remember the experiment right. Yeast can tolerate an ungodly amount of alcohol and they are doing so in the bucket sitting behind me right now. They will go dormant when they run out of sugar, or the temperature gets too low. I'll add a little sugar to the bottles at that time, and they will wake up long enough to carbonate the beer. Mmmm.

Yeast clearly aren't very smart. Are human beings?

Maybe. They do eventually learn "don't shit where you eat", and follow it pretty well for the most part.

Which is why there are so many of them leaving all the filth behind in the big cities and moving somewhere where they can breath and not choke on it.

Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells

[jafac]

Bzzzt! Dumb answer #1. Red (rural) states have grown faster then blue ones due to emigration from the cities to the rural areas.

Or not:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/129 4248/p osts

Which is why there are so many of them leaving all the filth behind in the big cities and moving somewhere where they can breath and not choke on it

More like, they're moving to the country where they won't feel guilty driving their H2 to the end of the driveway to pick up their mail. Because the sky in the country isn't brown like it is in the cities. Yet.

As a former city-rat turned country-rat, the big challenge we learn out here in the country is; there's no fucking jobs. I ran away from the problems in the big city (Chicago).
But I don't really see anybody out here having learned anything, or changing their behavior. They're polluting, developing every square inch of land into strip malls on flood-plains, and spitting out dozens of offspring without worring about the hellhole they're going to have to live in when even rural areas become overpopulated. Maybe some of them even believe in "the rapture" so they don't worry about whether there will be enough resources for the next generation. About as smart as those yeasts.

Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells

[Curunir_wolf]

Or not:

Cute opinion piece. Here's some facts for you: us census data report

Yea, it's too bad about those city-money bastards with their peice-of-shit H2's coming out here ruining things for us stewards of the wilderness.

We try to teach them better. For instance, don't go looking for some corporate produced "job": those guys are just going to exploit you and the land, then pack up and leave when the trash gets too thick to deal with. Plus you just encourage them to build more strip malls and Walmarts.

Maybe some of them even believe in "the rapture" so they don't worry about whether there will be enough resources for the next generation.

I don't think those people are using very many resources...

Nebraska? Troll -1)

[razmaspaz]

New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the USA by a 2001 Executive Order from President Bush.

Except in Nebraska! :-)

Jackelope

[bombadillo]

I see this as an interesting prospect. If we mix JackRabbit with Antelope stem cells we may finally have the fabeled "Jackelope"! No longer will we have to resort to glueing horns onto a stuffed rabbit!

Re:thankfully

[windex]

Making a life saving treatment available where none existed is "in the public interest."

Would you rather have an expensive cure or none at all?

RTFA

[Concern]

The contaminants cause human antibodies to attack the transplanted cells. This has been demonstrated in experiments. All of this was covered in "TFA." This makes them dangerous and probably useless for human beings without some dubious attempts to remove the contaminants. I say dubious because they are unlikely to succeed, and in addition likely only handle the particular contaminations we already know about.

Re:RTFA

[Noehre]

The stem cells would be attacked by the immune system anyway, unless the original doner fetus just happened to be a match (i.e. similar HLA type).

For example, in donation of hematopoietic stem cells, close family members are generally screened as potential doners because the likelyhood of matching HLA isotypes is highest. Siblings have the highest chance of a full HLA match (at a modest 25%). Do you think some random stem cells are going to work?

Unless I'm horribly mistaken, these current stem cell lines will likely never be used as therapeutics. They are used almost exclusively in basic research. They just aren't that well suited for use as therapeutics. This is one of the reasons why embryonic stem cells aren't going to magically cure diseases any time in the near future.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Stevyn]

I love the spin slashdot puts on this stuff. I'm surprised it didn't say "The stem cell supply has been in ruins since Bush urinated in the supply."

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[iamwahoo2]

It is accurate. If your research depended on use or construction of stem cell research prior to Bush, your federal funding was cut unless you were already using one of the mentioned preexisting cell lines. There was federally funded research involving production of stem cells, some of which led to the already existing lines of stem cells. I have no idea where you got your information, but if I were you I would consider any information you get from political sources to be highly suspect, whether from Republicans or Democrats.

Re:"Effectively" is almost as good.

[hb253]

I'd bet you can find telephone book thick lists of research being done that someone somewhere might find objectionable. Where do we draw the line? Especially when a lot of the opposition to such research is based on inadequate scientific knowledge?

Newsflash! Newsflash!

[presarioD]

To all of those that jumped up and said that only Federal money is withheld no law is passed against stem cell research (their emphasis not mine) I should point out the obvious that...

frontline research is conducted with mostly Federal money coming out of the NSF, DoE (you name it) and not the private sector (unless subsidized by... Federal Grands).

Why do I always have to point out the obvious to people that don't know what they are talking about, but have a clear opinion about it, and are so happy to accept whatever the prevailing truth of the day happens to be, as long as it fits their very clear and concise perception of reality?

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[anagama]

• without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life

This "potential" argument bugs me. Because the cells could become a person, they ought to be treated as such right now when I am not? Hell, I could become millionaire - should I be treated as such? I could become a murderer - should I be put in jail now even though I haven't killed anyone? I favor looking at how something is right now, and making the evaluation - not basing the evaluation on the uncertain future.

Shouldn't that tell us something?

[SuperKendall]

First of all, California is of course funding research on its own.

But - shouldn't the lack of private funds towards this effort make you a little supicious? Many billions are spent on drug research. If there really is hardly any private funds going into this field then it should tell you that extracting anything of value is going to be very difficult, if the promise were as great as some people think then why have private companies not jumped all over it? Drug companies are investing in longshots all the time.

I'm not against the research, not even against harvesting stem cells, and I am glad California is funding the effort. But I also would hate for a lot of focus to go into stem cells when perhaps there are other areas of research that might languish as a result. I simply am saying if you follow the money, it seems odd that a lot of very smart companies are staying away in droves.

Re:Shouldn't that tell us something?

[nuggetman]

i think part of it may be that stem cells have a stigma attached to them. because of the media hype, people think "stem cells" and immediately think "abortion"

until they can shake that stigma there won't be much progress

Re:thankfully

[Boronx]

Because that's all that matter to you is profit, who's making it, and who's getting "bamboozled" into giving it to them.

MOD UP

[SuperKendall]

If you actually reda any of the stories, they really make it out to not be as big a deal as the Slashdot story would indicate.

I don't know why the poster went AC, but he makes a very good point that you have to question the motives of the people behind this "finding" when it's old news repackaged.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[KontinMonet]

A The majority of fertilized eggs are aborted naturally.
B Eggs are donated and fertilized outside the womb. Again most may not survive even when implanted. Numbers of extra fertilized cells are used for research.
C This shows how it works

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[learn fast]

The president doesn't fund cell research the NIMH does. If he hadn't issued the order restricting it they would have funded whatever they thought was the most scientifically valuable. It's not like he "allowed" the NIMH to fund other forms of stem cell research as well.

Why does it have to be the US gov?

[Momoru]

All this stem cell criticism is like the global warming articles....ok lets pretend the US government is the stone aged evil group some claim they are, and they dont want to fund Kyoto or Stem Cell Research. If the other 80% of the world is funding stem cell research, and private companies are funding it, there doesn't appear to be any real road block in terms of this miracle science coming true....its not as if when the US government contributes suddenly the science works....There are many stem cell companies out there right now that are privately funded, if the technology is so promising, someone, be it the EU or Pfizer is investing tons of cash, because if you develop the cure for cancer or diabetes it will more then pay you back.

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[drightler]

As inflamitory as the following may be to you, you post is equally inflamitory to me. In my viewpoint pregnancy is a medical condition, and a cureable one at that. It should not matter if that cure is morally offensive to you or I as we are not the one making the decission. Morals are a personal thing and I don't believe they should be forced upon others. You may want to compare it to murder, but in my mind I can see a difference. If you are morally objectional to abortion, please don't have one, but please do not try to make that decission for everyone.

Re:Stop apologizing . .

[HarveyBirdman]

I wish people would top being "technically correct" and discuss the real issue at hand...

That's a wonderfully Orwellian statement. Congrats. Well, that might happen if the initial posting didn't claim that the testing was "outlawed". There's nothing wrong with people setting the record straight.

Here in California we passed some funding bonds for stem cell research. While I support the research (Personally, I'd set up free abortion kiosks on the street in order to harvest them. I consider "ethics" on these issues to be the domain of the weak and intellectually stunted) I voted against it because it was too much credit spending at a time we are trying to dig out from the pit that unrestrained Democratic governance invariably digs. Maybe next time. If the treatments stem cells promise are so wonderful, then the private sector can foot some of the bill.

Re:Make G. W. Bush's head spin...

[Tiroth]

That's a pretty insightful post. Bush really hasn't delivered much in the way of concrete wins to religious conservatives, but he manages to convey the impression to both his conservative base and the liberal opposition that he is making great strides.

Perhaps it wouldn't be too incorrect to say that he has calculated that his religious supporters can be misled but Wall Street is in the business of running the numbers.

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[phyruxus]

>>I mean, the Germans during the holocaust had no idea what they were doing was terrible.

Not true. Some Germans cared, some didn't. To say that no Germans thought that mass murder was wrong is simply wrong.

>>The slaveowners actually thought they were doing a service by beating their slaves and forcing them to labor.

Only those who believed their own lies. Just because you keep up a front doesn't make it the truth.

What I find most ridiculous is that the same group of people who said that a black man is less than a white man and that kidnapping and enslaving africans was the "white man's burden" are the same group who pretend that they are the worlds single moral authority, and claim that as the basis for everything they are for. Infanticide has a longer history than civilization. Longer than our species. As far as opinions go, mine is that the fetus isn't a child until there's brain activity. None of this "potential" tripe that so many people bandy about. Until then it's just a lump of flesh.

You want to rail against "child murder"? How about the foetal deaths caused by pollution? How about all those dead kids in Iraq? Conservatives have no moral authority because they have continuously contradicted themselves.

If murder is murder, why have a death penalty? Why start preemptive wars? Political convenience, that's why. It's all a lie.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[EvilLile]

While I try to stay out of these kinds of arguments, your argument seems to be along the lines:

"Because most fertilized eggs die without intervention, it is okay to kill them with intervention."

So if I substitute "living people over the age of 2," is it suddenly moral for me to kill whoever I want? They'd probably die eventually.

Re:"Effectively" is almost as good.

[The One and Only]

Maybe research shouldn't be government funded anyway. But there are few moral objections stronger than the objection to murder. Compelling people to finance what they believe is murder goes far beyond any reasonable bounds.

Re:Stop apologizing . .

[finkployd]

_My_ tax dollars go into those research coffers and it makes me _really_ angry that they can't be used for this research to better the survival chances of our species because of some phony pseudo-morality political pandering.

I actually get more angry that our tax dollars go to support medical research that is then patented and sold back to us a insane rates.

I wish people would top being "technically correct" and discuss the real issue at hand . . stem cell research outside of the current lines of embyronic stem cells. was seriously hindered by the actions of this government

Are you under the impression that the federal government EVER funded embryotic stem cell research? It didn't.

Finkployd

Finkployd

Re:Bad news for those who want to grow antlers...

[kokoloko]

I guess it depends on what kind of animal tissue they were contaminated by.

Re:"Effectively" is almost as good.

[Draknor]

Taxes pay for state-sanctioned murder in multiple forms - war in Iraq and the death penalty, for example. And taxpayers pay for classified research into new weapons to kill people and new spy technology. Taxes also pay for corporate welfare via "tax loopholes" to special interests. I'm morally opposed to all of these things, and yet I contine to pay taxes.

So to answer your question - yes, in our (US's) current form of government the taxpayer has to pay taxes with no regard to what those funds are used for, morally opposed or not. If you are a voter, your only choice is to decide what candidate you feel will do the least morally reprehensible things with your money.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[de Selby]

"Embryonic Stem Cells don't work"

And people have been trying as hard as hell to prove other stem cells work as well because...?

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[networkBoy]

If I still had mod points I'd mod you into flaimebait oblivion.

As it is I am personally pro-life. My vote, however, is firmly pro choice. Why? Because as soon as you legislate what is acceptable and what is not (as to when an abortion is legal when normally banned), you will inevitably run into a condition where an abortion would make logical sense, but is not covered by the law, and thus is illegal.

I am pro-life because my mother had me ten days after she turned 18. I was put up for adoption, and was loved and raised by a couple who could not have children. They are mom and dad. I now enjoy a wonderful relationship will all my parents, (I have three "dads", two "moms", and one step-mom). I know full well I could be an aborted fetus, but I'm not, thus I'm firmly pro-life. I will not, under darn near any circumstance, impose my belief on another, thus my vote being firmly pro-choice.

You're trying to equate the Holocaust with abortion. While abortion is abominable, even in my eyes (partial birth particularly so) it is not the Holocaust. The Holocaust was about eliminating a human genome from the planet, a far more insidious thing. Get over your bible belt, moralistic, dictatorial views on abortion.

Roe V Wade was a Good Thing (tm) and should be allowed to stand.
-nB

Please...

[halivar]

If you don't get help at Charter, get help somewhere.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Reducer2001]

I could become millionaire - should I be treated as such? I could become a murderer - should I be put in jail now even though I haven't killed anyone?

That depends. The Supreme Court has rejected prior restraint, but if you have plans for a 'dirty bomb' you can be arrested for being a terrorist, even though you haven't done anything.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Valegor]

My point is not meaningless. What I was saying is that you cannot cut funding that does not yet exist. It is not accurate to say that he cut funding as some people are saying.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Phat_Tony]

Yes, as everyone points out over and over, Bush opponents regularly blow this totally out of proportion- it's not a "ban," stem cell research is not "illegal." This is simply a restriction on using Federal Government funding to support research that develops new lines of human, embryonic stem cells, and all four of those items in italics greatly reduce the impact of Bush's executive order compared to what is often claimed.

Never the less, the executive order in question is reprehensible. Bush is using tenuous, illogical, religious grounds to justify denying a large category of funding to a promising area of scientific inquiry. Hundreds of potential stem cell lines for research are being destroyed daily from aborted fetuses. If Bush is in favor of destroying existing resources (human tissues) instead of using them to advance science and save lives, why not ban organ donation? Does anything in the bible say "thou shalt not help fund researching [new, human, embryonic] stem cells if thou art the [federal] government?" If this research is immoral, why only ban government funding, as opposed to all funding, or the research itself? If this is about abortion, why not oppose abortion, rather than research? Can anyone make sense of this policy? It scares me, not in how sweeping the effects are, but because The President, the "Leader of the Free World," is using executive orders to dictate where scientific research funding goes based on personal, nonsensical, unpopular religious motives.

I think the rest of government should do what the Pentagon does, and ignore it. There's no basis in law for "executive orders" anyway. I doubt any president would allow a case based on violating an executive order to go to court, in case the Supreme Court ruled that Executive orders don't exist. Chances are, Bush can't do anything but get grumpy if the whole Federal Government simply ignores his ban.

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[beelsebob]

All that is just fine - until you realise that the cutoff is not when the baby is born, it is when the baby starts to develop a nervous system. If the baby is incapable of thinking or being conscious then it is not alive, and by terminating the pregnancy (a medical condition), you are not killing anyone.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[DukeToma]

No, you've got it wrong. It's more like, you COULD become an adult human being but because so many fail to make it to that stage of development we've taken it upon ourselves to legalizing the killing of human beings in the embryonic and fetal stages of development for our own benefit/profit. Just because they are in an earlier stage of development does not make them any less human. You were an embryo too at one point.

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[WIAKywbfatw]

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I guess it makes you feel superior to those on the other side of the debate by defining a pregnancy, even one in its embryonic stage as equal to a fully-formed and developed baby regardless of whether or not that pregnancy has developed to the stage where it has a viable chance of life outside the womb.

I find it funny that the same people who are so adamant that abortion is murder are almost always the same people that are opposed to the dissemination of methods of birth control as well as the same people who are quick to make single mothers the scapegoats for all of society's ills.

And what right do you have to tell a pregnant woman, regardless of how her child was conceived, just what exactly she is allowed to do with her own body?

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[eaolson]

I think a better term is "murdered children".

I think a much better term is "undifferentiated zygote."

Very, very few abortions happen when a fetus is viable. I think in many states that's flat out illegal. And saying that terminating a pregnancy before there is a heartbeat, let alone any sort of brainwave activiy, is morally equivalent to killing an infant is ridiculous.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Ohreally_factor]

I could become a murderer - should I be put in jail now even though I haven't killed anyone?

That should be up to Pre-Crime, not the President.

Let's change the phrase a little bit...

[jasondlee]

...and see if the logic still holds:

Oh and if red states have a problem with the us working with [results obtained from genocide], then they can choose NOT use the cures and solutions that will come out of this...

Hrm...nope...still sounds like murder to me. I'm not against SCR. Adult stem cells *do* work, while embryonic stem cells have yet to show a single success (and have shown several grossly negative results), and adult stem cells don't kill the donor.

Re:Let's change the phrase a little bit...

[DavidTC]

The 'donor' is going to die anyway. The 'donor' is, in fact, a fertilized egg sitting in a freezer waiting to be thrown out with the trash.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Valegor]

Stem cell research was illegal in the US before Clinton made it legal. If you are claiming that previous presidents have funded it please provide some links to proof.

Demonstrate?

[Mr Guy]

You want someone to demonstrate proof of conciousness?

Hell, you can't even demonstrate that my boss has human conciousness, outside of my frame of perspective. For all I know, once he leaves my office he turns into a pink elephant and flits around with the fairies. 'Demonstrate' is most definitely not the word you are looking for when you're talking about conciousness.

Re:Sort of off topic, but

[SuiteSisterMary]

An executive order, by it self, is basically a somewhat binding statement of intent.

"We, the Executive Branch of the US Gov't, have X amount of money to dole out for medical research. We won't give any money to researchers named Bob."

"We, the Executive Branch of the US Gov't, can legally assassinate foreign leaders in the name of National Security. However, we choose not to."

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[nebaz]

This brings up a question that has always bothered me. What is the constitutional justification for executive orders that affect funding. Shouldn't this be a congressional action?

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[DukeToma]

"The rest of the embryos are destroyed as medical waste. That's it. No abortions."

Excuse me. Isn't an abortion the destruction of an embryo or fetus?

The other solution

[Acy James Stapp]

Legalize Infanticide. I agree that it's a hard line to draw, but you and I both know that the child takes a year or more to even begin to act like we would consider "human". Gurgling, cooing, shitting on your shirt? Sure it looks cute, but I assert that until the creature has the capability of acting morally it isn't worthy of moral consideration.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Martin Blank]

I don't have much of a problem with the state funding the research, but dammit, we don't have the money to be doing this right now. That $3B borrowed will cost the state $6B, possibly more if the state's credit rating doesn't improve in the next few years. Lets get our house in order, and then wait a couple of years before we go into this.

Not to mention the questions about just who would be profiting under this. :/

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[SilverspurG]

And now that they are contaminated, they are useless

If I read correctly, they've _always_ been contaminated. The logical question is,"Didn't anyone think about this ahead of time?" Why is it suddenly so important to be so meticulous now and do everything from the ground up?

It's sound like political bellyaching to me. If the inclusion of the Neu5Gc had potential problems, wouldn't the scientists have anticipated it ahead of time? These are supposedly world class researchers. For everyone to come up, 5-10 years later, and say,"Oooops. We just realized..."

No. I'm not buying it.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[drmike0099]

This is misleading. He didn't actually make a conscious decision one day and say "let's start funding stem cell research". Through the NIH it was getting funded as part of the scientific research the gov't supports. What he did do was make a conscious decision to terminate that support.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

['nother poster]

NIMH? National Institutes of Mental Health funds stem cell research? Umm, do you mean NIH? National Institutes of Health.

Here is the NIH stem cell policy page for anyone interested.

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/funding/research/stem_cel l/

Reposted to thwart censorship

[FreeUser]

Since the original comment was censored by right-leaning moderators, here is a recap:

It's technically correct, but also misleading, to say that federal funding of embryonic-stem cell research is all that has been banned. While technically true, the reach of federal funding extends so wide and deep in the research community that the net effect of banning embryonic stem-cell research by any group, organization, or individual is indistinguishable from outlawing it completely to most organizations.

It isn't just federal funding for stem-cell research that has been banned. Federal funding for any research, related or not, bans any embryonic stem-cell research from being conducted, anywhere, by anyone associated with the organization involved. Nearly every research organization in the country receives federal funding in one form or another. If the lab across campus doing physics has a federal grant, you can't do embryonic stem-cell research (except using the existing, contaminated lines).

The effect is the same as outlawing stem-cell research for 99.9% of all research facilities, a fact the fundies and Republican apologists like to play down or dismiss entirely. However, it doesn't make distortions like those in the summary any less obnoxious or inaccurate. There is at least one entirely privately funded research facility in California that is doing embryonic stem-cell research, our superstitious, less-than-intelligent, ever-so-less-than-competent president notwithstanding.

Re:Reposted to thwart censorship

[SiliconEntity]

Since the original comment was censored by right-leaning moderators, here is a recap:

I have a hunch that you were modded down because what you're saying doesn't seem sensible.

It isn't just federal funding for stem-cell research that has been banned. Federal funding for any research, related or not, bans any embryonic stem-cell research from being conducted, anywhere, by anyone associated with the organization involved. Nearly every research organization in the country receives federal funding in one form or another. If the lab across campus doing physics has a federal grant, you can't do embryonic stem-cell research (except using the existing, contaminated lines).

If that were true, it would mean for example that the California stem cell initiative would be practically worthless. None of the top California state and private universities, institutions like Berkeley and Stanford, UCLA and Cal Tech, would be able to take on any of the funding from this initiative, because they all have physics departments and other departments that receive federal grants. The only people who could receive funding under the California initiative would be small private clinics.

But that's obviously not true. California research institutions strongly supported the stem cell initiative, and if the funds weren't going to be able to be used by the top researchers, opponents of the initiative would have used that fact to kill it.

In sum, your statement flunks the plausibility test. The ban on federal funds for stem cell research can't be as extreme as you say. If you want to claim otherwise, please provide a link to the text of the regulation for us to see for ourselves. In the absence of such a response, I encourage moderators to once again mod you down.

Re:Reposted to thwart censorship

[FreeUser]

If that were true, it would mean for example that the California stem cell initiative would be practically worthless.

That's incorrect. The reason so few institutions are able to do stem-cell research in the United States, even with private funds, is that they are restricted by federal grants for other, unrelated research.

The California measure is in part to off-set federal funding losses for institutions that would lose federal funding if they choose to advance the science, and in part posturing, as California cannot afford to fund the initiative.

There is at least one group doing stem cell research in California, but they are only able to do so because ALL of their funding is private, in ALL areas. Were they to take on a single federal grant, even for something completely unrelated to stem-cell research, Bush's executive order WOULD take effect and they would either have to suspend their stem-cell research, or lose their other grants.

This applies to universities, corporations, and others, regardless of California's initiative. So yes, in many respects California's initiative is next to useless.

You may not find it plausible for governments to behave in such a boneheaded fashion, but your disbelief doesn't change the facts of the matter in the least.

Re:Reposted to thwart censorship

[porkchop_d_clown]

that is completely false. As has been posted elsewhere on this thread, the NIH even has guidelines on how to do privately-funded stemcell research without impacting your other research grants.

Re:"Effectively" is almost as good.

[The One and Only]

That's my point. Add, "I have a problem with that" onto the end of your message and you're just restating what I said.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[terraformer]

It doesn't matter - Embryonic Stem Cells don't work. Stem Cells harvested from Umbilical Cords, on the other hand, *do* work

And there was a time where people died from the plague, tuberculosis and others. Yet, amazingingly they don't, if properly treated, these days. This is because someone dared to not give up, and tried their experiments over and over again, ever so slightly different each time. eventually finding the right mix of actions to illicit the desired response.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[SilverspurG]

You demonstrate a few dozen cells have human consiousness

How about here?

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[DukeToma]

A The majority of fertilized eggs are aborted naturally. B Eggs are donated and fertilized outside the womb. Again most may not survive even when implanted. Numbers of extra fertilized cells are used for research.

A This is equivalent to saying "The Majority of human beings will not make it to adulthood." Which is true of course, but does not justify killing human beings who are in earlier stages of development. B Again just because somebody comes into the world from one unethical practice (In Vitro Fertilization) does not justify removing them with another unethical practice. Discriminating against IVF human beings when science tells us that they are the same as In Utero Fertilized human beings is an act of an incredibly uncivilized society.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[monkeydo]

The NIH stem cell funding FAQ might help you out with some of your misconceptions. Past funding is of no consequence. The prohibition only applies to current funding.

Q: I am an investigator who receives NIH funding, and I am planning to derive new human embryonic stem cell lines. Can I conduct the derivations in my laboratory, or do I need to find a non-university-funded laboratory to do this work?

A: You may do the derivation in your university laboratory as long as: 1) you carefully and consistently charge all direct costs of doing the derivation to a non-federal funding source and 2) your university or research center has in place a method of allocating the costs of supporting your laboratory so that this activity's appropriate facilities and administrative (F&A) costs are charged to non-federal accounts.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[anagama]

Yes yes, the cells are "human". They aren't a person though. For example, my hair is just as much human cells as an embryo - no crime getting it cut. The problem you have is that you want to grant the rights of personhood to the cells. Do the cells have the characteristics of personhood? Thought, logic, will, etc? For quite a period (I think brain activity is absent in the first 2-3 months of preggers) there is none of that. If thought is not important - you won't mind coming in for a labotomy will you?

The above is where the "potential" argument comes from because a dozen cells really don't have the characteristics of a person - so you say "they have potential". But face it, nobody gets squat for potential. You don't go to prison for what you could do, only what you do do. You don't get special privileges for what you could be, only for what you are. Why should a few dozen cells be distinguished from everything else? It's a religious/emotional thing - just admit that there is no rational basis and you will at least be arguing from an honest position rather than trying to wear a cloak of impressive words.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Agripa]

It WAS brought up when Bush made his executive order and after the order there was nothing to be done. New cell lines could not be used in federally funded research so there was no way to correct the problem of animal contamination. It has just taken until now for the problem to become serious enough to warrent this much attention.

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[jacksonj04]

A foetus cannot be considered living until it can survive independantly of the mother without immediate intensive medical aid.

If you look closely, abortions are not permitted anywhere near the point at which the foetus can survive without the mother UNLESS there is a significant risk to the life or mental wellbeing of the mother should the child not be aborted.

I've dealt with this crap, when you've had to actually sit down with someone who wanted an abortion (rape, first child died after 3 months, 2nd rape she didn't want it again) then you can say "Oh it shouldn't be allowed". Until then, I'll leave it to the individual.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[spasmatik]

That doesn't make any sense. There would be no need to conceive only to abort. There are plenty enough abortions occurring to supply plenty of stem cells for research. It's a bogus argument that's used to shield a religious motive.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[lcsjk]

He did??? I did not know that!!

"Waiter..."

[srcosmo]

...there's mouse in my stem cells.

Animals first, then humans.

[bryane]

Ah, here we go

1. modify animals to make them smarter
2. modify humans to ... AUGHH!!!

...I for one welcome our animal overlords.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[monkeydo]

Never the less, the executive order in question is reprehensible. Bush is using tenuous, illogical, religious grounds to justify denying a large category of funding to a promising area of scientific inquiry. Hundreds of potential stem cell lines for research are being destroyed daily from aborted fetuses.

Even atheists have morals and ethics. There's an ethical dilemna posed by embryonic stem cell research and President Bush made a compromise between disallowing all funding, and allowing federal funding for unlimited destruction of potential human life. You can hate Bush all you like, but you can't deny that this dilemna exists, even apart from religious belief. If Bush was the zealot you seem to believe, he would have simply banned stem cell research altogether.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[nebaz]

Never mind, I found a link

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[Washizu]

I think a better term is "murdered children"

Murder is defined as "the unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." So you can't murder someone in self-defense and the government can't murder someone by lethal injection. The word "murder" specifically applies to deaths that are against the law, which abortion clearly is not.

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[jadavis]

Is motherhood a medical condition?

Seriously, though. Infanticide is different than murder in some important ways. You don't walk down the streets at night afraid of being aborted. Since it's killing your own genetic material only (well, and the father's, which many people never mention), that means really you only have one person to be afraid of: your mother. And most people aren't afriad of their mother killing them.

Speaking of fathers, why aren't the fathers involved in the decision? An abortion is basically "I don't like the way this baby is going to affect my life, so I'll kill it" in most cases. So why can't the father have an equal say?

And don't bring in some corner case where the mother has to decide between her own life and her baby's life. That is a rare reason for an abortion. It's much more common to just get a doctor to say that than for it to actually be true.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[lcsjk]

Ever wondered why it says that? (404 not found!)

I searched and found "Results 1 - 10 of about 22,800,000 for 404."

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[iamacat]

Dude, at least get your facts straight. As someone pointed out below embryonic stem cells don't come from abortions. They come from in-vitro fertilization and are currently discarded and die anyway. AND abortions only happen when the baby is viable if it has severe defects and no chance of enjoyable life or mother's health is in danger. Only during the first trimester is the decision is entirely up to the mother.

I am pro-choice, but I wouldn't allow aborting a baby at 8 months except in horrible and rare circumstances. Does anyone here really think different? If mother is likely to be killed by either birth or C-section, or if the baby is going to live in pain and drown in it's own saliva by the age of 3, well that's a different story.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[anagama]

• The religious right position on life is that life begins at conception (when a sperm and egg unite). Under this definition, any embryo destroyed is most certainly an abortion.

I don't mind when the religious right states an honest position, and saying "I believe that conception is the point of life" WITHOUT going on to make any of the usual silly arguments is just fine - make it a matter of faith and leave it at that. The problem is, when religion controls government too much, life sucks. Life under Al Queda would likely be about as pleasant as life under the extreme Christian Right. Keep the law and the church separate.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Because if you believe that life begins at conception, then the fertilized eggs are in fact children, and precious lifeforms.

Children are precious. Eggs are not - you have a large supply of those.

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[ari_j]

On the abortion issue, I think that the biggest mistake people are making is considering a question of law to even begin with. It is already illegal to murder another person. Abortion should be a question of fact, meaning something a jury determines with the help of expert testimony.

Whether abortion is murder turns on whether a fetus is a living human, which in turn depends on when you decide life has begun. The "life begins at birth" side has it wrong. If a mother gives birth prematurely by a week, the baby will live, and therefore it must have already been alive a week before the due date. But killing it ten minutes before it's due somehow isn't really murder? The logic is flawed.

Moreover, no argument based on the dependence of the fetus can be made. By law, the child is dependent upon the parents until the age of 18, anyhow. Would you consider a mother killing her child when he is 6 months old murder? How about 6 years? 17?

Any argument for either side must be made in terms of when life begins, and I don't trust Congress any more than I trust religious zealots (myself included) to objectively define when that is. I do trust doctors to determine when life begins, because they are the ones who can say "Miss Smith, your son was born 8 weeks early, but he is going to make it." or "Ma'am, I'm sorry, but your child was born 15 weeks early, and there isn't much hope at this point."

Defining birth as beginning at conception is, then, equally ridiculous. A fetus born 9 months prematurely has zero chance of survival.

The gray area is the time between conception and birth. Exactly where should the line be drawn? I personally draw it at brain activity, because that's how we measure when you are dead and, if you are clinically dead, then you can't be a victim of a future homicide. However, I defer to medical judgment on this question. If the State can prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the child was medically alive at the time of abortion, then a murder conviction is supported. If the State cannot prove that, then no conviction should occur.

Re:Sort of off topic, but

[Ohreally_factor]

It was an executive order that sent West coast Japanese Americans into concentration camps during WWII. An executive order effectively has the power of law.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[quietlysubversive]

minority of the public = 50% of the voting population

haha

this kind of head-in-sand elitist behavior is why you liberals keep losing elections

Re:"Effectively" is almost as good.

[anagama]

Should any taxpayer be compelled to pay for WAR that he is morally opposed to, and that he considers to be murder?

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[fish_in_the_c]

Each of the many eggs is a viable human fetus. destroying them is almost the same thing as an abortion, minus the many ill effects on the mother and to many religious people is of a nearly identical moral character. Of coarse the real moral issues is that they should NEVER have been brought together that way in the first place, ie in vitro fertilization of human eggs should be illegal. That however is considered by many a more difficult battle to fight so publicly people go after the "bigger fish" of abortion.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[fizbin]

Excuse me. Isn't an abortion the destruction of an embryo or fetus?

No, actually it isn't. Or rather, almost all abortions(*) involve the destruction of an embryo or fetus, but the destruction of fertilized eggs that have never been implanted is not the abortion of any pregnancy. No anti-abortion campaigner (that I know of) has ever called this action abortion; they may have called it "destruction of human life" and "morally equivalent to abortion", but that's different.

(*) This gets into politically-laden terminology - is it an abortion when a dilation and extraction procedure (the procedure that's often labeled "partial birth abortion") is performed on a woman carrying a fetus which has already died in utero? If so, since the fetus is dead before the procedure begins, is the D&C procedure the destruction of a fetus?

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[sugar and acid]

To be consistent then you have to be against invitro fertilization. As the techniques necessitates a certain amount of waste in the production of fertilized eggs which have to be destroyed anyway, and their is really no way around this (the irony, a way for invertile couples to have a baby requires the destruction of fertilized embryos). Protest and try and ban invitro-fertilization if you believe that life begins with fertilization and thus destroying fertilized eggs is immoral, but if you choose not to do not split hairs protesting stem cell research.

Umbilical cord stem cells are not a replacement for embryonic stem cells, though they are still useful. Also to say that one form works while the other doesn't is trying to second guess the research, as extrodinarily enough the stem cell research is designed to find out how exactly what the stem cells are capable of and what they are useful for, so we don't know what each type of stem cell will work for a particular situation and that is one of the reasons for doing research.

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[Fulcrum of Evil]

What I find most ridiculous is that the same group of people who said that a black man is less than a white man and that kidnapping and enslaving africans was the "white man's burden" are the same group who pretend that they are the worlds single moral authority, and claim that as the basis for everything they are for.

What does 'white man's burden' have to do with Africa? It refers to the fact that, in India, back in the days of the british empire, not matter how you help the natives or what you do for them, they will hate you for being their master. Just like today, where, no matter what we do for Iraq, they will hate us and want us gone because we are foreigners occupying their country.

Not a Clever Article Fix, Just Make it Right

[syntap]

Let's see... isn't

New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the USA by a 2001 Executive Order from President Bush. To be precise, stem cell harvesting wasn't outlawed.

kind of like saying

Water is made of nitrogen. To be precise, water is made of hydrogen and oxygen.

Re:Not a Clever Article Fix, Just Make it Right

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

kind of like saying...Water is made of nitrogen. To be precise, water is made of hydrogen and oxygen.

But it is a lot more like saying, "The DMCA bans cracking DRM mechanism protected with encryption. To be precise, it bans possessing or sharing the tools used to crack DRM encryption.

It is not a literal ban, as that would apolitical. It is a wishy washy effective ban from wishy washy washington, where people don't say what they mean, only what can be spun. The vast majority of labs are dependent upon federal funding, since federal taxes are so high compared to state taxes. If a lab does stem cell research on new lines, the whole lab loses federal funding, not just that project. This means completely private labs will have to be run, just for this research, at added expense, and without federal funding which is about 70% of most labs' income. It is a ban in reality, just not in lawyer speak.

Re:Not a Clever Article Fix, Just Make it Right

[syntap]

Your reply assumes that labs do things for the public good, when reality is that drug companies fund things that will be profitable.

If the medical community REALLY thought stem cells would cure lots of things, labs would be writing their own checks to research it. How many Fed dollars do you think went into erectile dynfunction? Probably zero, but it is a profitable venture so it got funding.

Re:Not a Clever Article Fix, Just Make it Right

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

If the medical community REALLY thought stem cells would cure lots of things, labs would be writing their own checks to research it. How many Fed dollars do you think went into erectile dynfunction? Probably zero, but it is a profitable venture so it got funding.

You are incorrect on all accounts. First, drug companies are funding stem cell research, but mostly overseas and in Cuba. Plenty of Fed dollars when to researching erectile dysfunction. The way things work is Federal money goes to research labs doing basic research and groundwork. Then drug companies take that research and develop a drug from it. Drug companies fund the second part, and often give money to help direct the first part.

This is not about whether or not stem cell research will be conducted. It is about where it will be conducted, and who will have the expertise. China is making impressive enough progress that there is a waiting list to go to China for certain treatments. No this is just politicians trying to make an issue to get votes. This is Bush and his cronies sucking up to the anti-abortion crowd, without actually doing anything about stopping abortions. The only reason this is happening is because drug companies are moving their operations overseas. I'm somewhat surprised they did not lobby hard to get this reversed, but maybe they just don't care if it happens in the U.S. or overseas right now. Welcome to the U.S.A, technological backwater of the future.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[richardmilhousnixon]

The "embryonic" qualifier is very important. My research is funded by NSF and I work with nasal stem cells all the time. If harvesting all types of stem cells were illegal, federal employees wouldn't be allowed to sneeze.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[fizbin]

The religious right position on life is that life begins at conception (when a sperm and egg unite). Under this definition, any embryo destroyed is most certainly an abortion.

Uh, no. Under this definition, any embryo destroyed is murder. This means that abortion is murder and that the destruction of "spare" embryos from IVF is murder. It does not in any way mean that IVF is abortion.

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[Fulcrum of Evil]

While abortion is abominable, even in my eyes (partial birth particularly so)

What's so bad about partial birth abortion? It's primarily used for severe hydrocephalics. The fetus has a head the size of a basketball and is in no way viable.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[jcenters]

Because if you believe that life begins at conception, then the fertilized eggs are in fact children, and precious lifeforms.

I'm not sure if you were reading the parent correctly, but the embryos are destroyed regardless. It doesn't matter if they're used for research, their fate is the same.

So, considering how much you claim to value life, then surely you can agree that it is better to use such "medical waste" to better people's lives, instead of simply throwing it in the trash.

CROCK OF SHIT!!!

[PortHaven]

U.S.A. did not BAN stem cells. They banned fetal/embryonic stem cells.

Furthermore, many of the great stem cell achievements, (if not most) have been from non-fetal stem cells.

Please fix this post and make it accurate instead of re-iterating media bullshit agenda. Thank you!

Likely not actually moving that fast

[nimblebrain]

There are serious issues with equating redshift with velocity. Some items with significantly different redshifts may be close in space. I've looked through a number of papers myself, some of which indicate that there is an extra redshift that corresponds roughly to the type of object being looked at. Otherwise, we're left in the uncomfortable position of having younger galaxies in clusters facing away from us, and older galaxies facing towards us. Anything that points to us as occupying a special position in the universe is... somewhat suspect :)

As to what the phenomenon actually is that causes the high redshifts, I don't think we know yet.

There is a middle ground though...

[Cryptnotic]

There are quite a lot of people who believe that either after the fetus is viable (i.e., could live on its own in an incubator or after the brain of the fetus starts to emit certain brain waves (a lack of those waves in an adult leads to them being called "brain dead") then it is at that point that the rights of the child/fetus need to be considered. According to a friend of mine, the brain waves condition occurs at around 4-5 months though, which the rabid "women must be able to kill their fetuses up to the day they would be born" people would never agree to.

Since the real way to stop abortions is for stupid women and girls to not get pregnant, and since that isn't going to happen, it looks like the anti-abortion people will be doing their thing for a while. However, I think that if a partial birth abortion ban were to pass, quite a few of the anti-abortion people would relax a bit. The pro-abortion people don't want to give them that concession though. It's sort of strange. Both sides have a strong distaste for partial birth abortion, but even though it is very rare, the pro abortion people don't want to give it up.

Re:There is a middle ground though...

[cmallinson]

However, I think that if a partial birth abortion ban were to pass, quite a few of the anti-abortion people would relax a bit.

Instead of relaxing, maybe those people could spend some time in a NICU, taking care of the babies who were born and are kept alive in neverending pain because "life is precious". I do not believe in late term abortions (my son was born at 24 weeks gestation, just over 1 pound, and nobody can tell me he was not alive and aware of his surroundings at that stage) but placing a unilateral ban on any type of pregnancy terminations will result in more pain for more people than you could imagine.

Re:There is a middle ground though...

[Cryptnotic]

Hmm.. I think that if I were in that situation and had an understanding of it, I would prefer to endure the pain and live rather than be euthanized. It is very easy to criticize the "life is precious" crowd by taking the counter-position "life is not precious". However, when it comes to people's own lives, they generally feel that while their own life is precious at least to them, other people's lives are not. In other words, you might say, "that life is not worth living", but to that person you are referring, they might say "my life is absolutely worth living since it's the only one I've got".

As for your son, you could have chosen to terminate him at 24 weeks (assuming you are the mother). I am, however, certain that when he is older, he will be happy that you did not make that decision for him, and that whatever pain he went through or disabilities he has as a result of the problems are obstacles that are worth overcomming.

Re:There is a middle ground though...

[Lord Kano]

Thank God that your son turned out alright. His ordeal just shows that living viable children are being killed when women "exercise their choice" to murder them.

James Elgin Gill is listed in the Guinness book as the most premature baby to survive.

He was born 128 days premature. He was born more than 4 months early, so early that his eye lids were still fused shut.

Saving the mother's life is one thing, "Because I'm not ready for children" is bullshit.

LK

Um, yeah. China is curing brain damage now.

[MacDork]

I also hate it when people say stem cells can cure disease X. It isn't true, yet. Stem cells have yet to cure anything. If stem cells could cure diabetes or paralysis or brain damage or nerve damage, don't you think you'd hear a lot more about it in the press?

Yeah, nobody reputable is reporting success in any of these areas. I'm just glad that poor people can't afford a trip halfway around the world for treatment. Fortunately though, if Jenna Bush needs an abortion or brain surgery, she can drop the whole moral authority thing and fly to the appropriate country. I'm also thankful that a nation like China can still hand America its ass on a platter. I really like having my country upstaged in front of the world.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[erlenic]

extreme religious view

I hardly think your description is valid. I'm atheist, and I also believe that life begins at conception.

A new study

[EspressoMachine]

According to The Register, US-based scientists using stem cells has hit a brick wall.

According to The Grammar Daily Chronicle, subjects and verbs have hit a brick wall in negotiations. It seems the two parties just can not agree. =P

It takes 3

[headstash420]

Last I heard, three things were needed to make a baby - 1)sperm 2)egg 3)womb. While Invetro can fertilize an egg in a lab, I'm not aware of any baby coming to term in a petree dish. Take any 2 of the above in any combination and you certainly do not have life. You may be able to create cells with the potential for life (just add the womb)but how a fertilized egg frozen in a test tube can be considered murder is beyond me. I understand the pro life/pro choice debate, but can someone explain how a fertilized egg which would NEVER have the opportunity for life (sans womb)is still considered murder? If so, would invetro itself qualify as murder since unused embryos are destroyed?

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[erlenic]

You seem to be misinformed as well. Not every right-winger is religious. There is a "religious right" but they're not the only ones on the far right, and they're not the only ones who are pro-life. I'm an atheist, far right, pro-lifer.

logic ?

[Jodka]

I have absolutely no moral or ethical objections to harvesting stem cells. I don't consider undiferentiated cells to be " a human life". I also have a close family member who has Parkinsons disease. I am strongly-pro stem cell reasearch.

But I take issue with Dr Ajit Varki foisting fake science on the public.

from The Register:

"The human embryonic stem cells remained contaminated by Neu5Gc even when grown in special culture conditions with commercially available serum replacements, apparently because these are also derived from animal products.

The argument for the necessity of harvesting new human stem cells goes like this:

Having established that culturing stem cells in a serum replacment derived from animal products contaminates the cells with Neu5Gc, scientists attempt to rid existing cell lines of Neu5Gc by culturing them in serum replacement derived from animal products. This fails to rid the stem cells of Neu5Gc. Therefore, they conclue that existing cell lines can not be rid of Neu5Gc by growing them in a in serum not derived from animal products. It is therefore necessary to harvest new cell lines and grow them in culture not derived from animal products.

Try growing existing cell lines in serum not derived from animals and see if that rids them Neu5Gc. Then get back to us.

So, logically... If... she.. weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood!

Same thing, different century.

Wait...

[paranode]

When married couples pay for in-vitro fertilization, the clinics fertilize many eggs in a lab.

What about unmarried couples? Wait, you're one of those religious right-wing zealots aren't you?! Quit pushing your propaganda! Burn him at the stake!!

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Raunch]

parent is (99%) correct:

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp

A couple goes to IVF(in vitro fertilization) clinic; an operation is performed to extract oocytes(unfertilized embryos). These oocytes are all fertilized and then frozen. The (now)embryos are thawed one at a time and incubated. When they have passed a critical point (the stage at which a genetic disease would develop for instance); the embryo is surgically implanted in the female.

The embryos that are unused are very much THROWN AWAY. So all of those activists out there that are attempting to convince you (including the president who said that stem cells crossed a "fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.")

I'm sorry Mr. president, but that line gets crossed every time an embryo from an IFV clinic gets thrown away.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Sique]

Here we have a saying (about something that was so long ago that the only knowledge one possesses comes from hearsay): "At that time I was still curd cheese in the display window." ('Damals war ich noch Quark im Schaufenster.')

According to your logic we have to thread curd cheese the same way as a human being because after some digestion and metabolism the atoms could form a human embryo.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[CokeBear]

Unlike the current administration, who believe that life begins at military draft age.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[the_Bionic_lemming]

For example, my hair is just as much human cells as an embryo - no crime getting it cut.

The example is fatally flawed - the purpose of a hair is not to become a baby, so therefore it's ok to cut - An embroyo on the other hand is a life, and cutting it would be a crime.

Wrong by definition

[WotanKhan]

murder: he crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought (emphasis mine)

If abortion is legal, then it is by definition not murder. What you are trying to say is that you would like to define it as murder, thus making it illegal.

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[drightler]

It isn't as cut and dry as that. If a woman isn't ready for motherhood then there is a good possibility she will not be a good mother. Then you have a child raised poorly which hurts soceity as a whole. Another situation is that there isn't enough money availible from the mother/father to raise a child. This results in a drain on the welfare system; basically making the taxpayers responsible for the child. It isn't a perfect world. In such a world abortion would never happen. My point is simply that just because a group of people disagrees with the practice it makes it no more of a wrong choice for others. If everyone would mind their own business more often there would be a lot less conflict in the world.

I also find it interesting that I was moderated as flamebait for offering an opinion different from the original poster's. People are way too unaccepting of alternative ideas.

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[Raunch]

Abortions are one thing; stem cells are another. Stemcells do not come from abortion; nor do they have anything to do with them. Stem cells are infact harvested when a couple undergoes IVF(in vitro fertilization).

It goes like this:

A couple goes to IVF(in vitro fertilization) clinic; an operation is performed to extract oocytes(unfertilized embryos). These oocytes are all fertilized and then frozen. The (now)embryos are thawed one at a time and incubated. When they have passed a critical point (the stage at which a genetic disease would develop for instance); the embryo is surgically implanted in the female.

The embryos that are unused are very much THROWN AWAY. So all of those activists out there that are attempting to convince you (including the president who said that stem cells crossed a "fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.")

I'm sorry jgardn, but that line gets crossed every time an embryo from an IFV clinic gets thrown away. So your problem is not with stem cells but actially with in vitro fertilization.

Here's a good primer:
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[955301]

And Atheism isn't an extreme view about religion?

I know, I know, but for someone who repeatedly claims to be an atheist, you sure to talk about god a lot in your journal.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Doc Ruby]

Bush, "conscious"? Prove it. Then prove that he "makes decisions", rather than appearing to announce them on TV. While this post is a flame, the distinctions are real - and your post is a claim that Bush actually makes these decisions.

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[DavidTC]

People who define it as conception are on crack anyway, as something like 50% of all 'pregnancies' end at the start of the mother's next period, and thus no one has the slightest clue they even happened.

So the Religious Right is Humpty Dumpty?

[Engineer-Poet]

The religious right position on life is that life begins at conception (when a sperm and egg unite). Under this definition, any embryo destroyed is most certainly an abortion.

Funny, in biology abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy. There are spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) and induced abortions. Induced abortions may be classified as therapeutic, elective or criminal.

A zygote in a Petri dish is not part of a pregnancy. Without a pregnancy, you cannot have an abortion. It's patently obvious that the attempt to classify the discarding of unused IVF zygotes as "abortions" has nothing to do with the facts, and everything to do with political posturing to an ignorant public. This resembles Humpty Dumpty redefining "glory" to suit his whim of the moment; it debases the very purpose of language, which depends on agreed-upon meanings.

you are equally misinformed.

I could get rich mining irony ore here.

This is the crux of the entire stem cell issue (from the religious right standpoint), and I'm amazed you don't understand this concept, yet choose to talk about this issue as if you are well informed.

If you mean that it's an issue (and a problem) that a large part of the American public is taking a highly-emotional political position based on what amounts to a large number of partial truths and outright falsehoods, then you begin to understand. Your problem is that the facts are opposite the stance you appear to be backing.

Re:So the Religious Right is Humpty Dumpty?

[Anonymous Coward]

Strawman... Let's rephrase, if you don't like the word "abortion".

Fertility clinics create human lives (viable embryos). They then throw many of them away. The religious right is against abortion because it kills "babies", meaning viable embryos. How is a fertility clinic different?

Re:So the Religious Right is Humpty Dumpty?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not a suprise that you focus on semantics here, as the "pro-choice" movement has succeeded most of all in the war of meaning. Simply positioning themselves as "for" something while the other side is "anti" something is a huge victory. After all, the debate sounds a lot different if you use "pro-life" instead of "anti-abortion."

However, "pro-life" is a more accurate term, and points out how disingenuous you are being here. The pro-life crowd believes (in general) in the following two premises:

1. Taking completely innocent life is always wrong if no other life is at stake.

2. Life begins at conception.

Now, clearly, there are areas where not everyone agrees (within the pro-life camp), but they pretty much all agree on these basics.

Starting with these ideas, abortion (the ending of a pregnancy) is wrong, because it ends a life that has commited no wrong. However, so would any other ending of a human life that has yet to be responsible for moral decisions. This includes the killing of "test tube babies."

When you intentionally focus on semantics at the expense of the meaning behind the words, you do not advance the discussion. The only place to question pro-life logic (on a broad scale) is to ask if the two premises listed above are correct. However, this is not the dicussion you want to have. It is easier for you to play word games than to try to answer difficult questions.

PS - I just so happen to believe that it would be wrong, under the premises above, to use the death penalty on people who are too mentally disabled to make decisions about right and wrong. Some "pro-life" people disagree with this. I find that to be a flaw in *their* thinking. But their mistake does not invalidate the line of thinking above.

Re:So the Religious Right is Humpty Dumpty?

[physicsphairy]

"Funny, in biology abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy. There are spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) and induced abortions. Induced abortions may be classified as therapeutic, elective or criminal.
A zygote in a Petri dish is not part of a pregnancy. Without a pregnancy, you cannot have an abortion. It's patently obvious that the attempt to classify the discarding of unused IVF zygotes as "abortions" has nothing to do with the facts, and everything to do with political posturing to an ignorant public. This resembles Humpty Dumpty redefining "glory" to suit his whim of the moment; it debases the very purpose of language, which depends on agreed-upon meanings."
Funny, I've never encountered such words as "therapeutic" "elective" etc. in biology. Neither have I encountered the word "abortion" and nor was I able to find it defined in any biological glossaries turned up by google. Could it be that you are referring to a medical term?

Why yes! Yes it is! Here is the actual medical definition, if you're interested.

Not that that's remotely relevant. You know full well what the poster was referring to in its political context. He was talking about an abortion of an embryo. Yes, that is not "an abortion". It is an "embryo abortion." You look can up the words embryo and abortion individually in a standard dictionary if you need to figure out what that means. I apologize that no one has created a specialized medical term to refer specifically to the destruction of IVF embryos. Aside from the mindless pedanting of folks such as yourself, I really don't think there is need for one. Thank you English language for being adaptable.

Now that we have that covered, way to subsitute a silly side tangent for a rebuttal. He was arguing that the destruction of these embryos constitutes a more dilemma for those who believe these embryos to constitute human life (he generalized them under the religious right). But I guess in the excitement of your etymological condescension you forgot to address the actual argument.

Well, here's a term that is defined by biology: "life'. Living things have these properties: they have a metabolism, they are homeostatic, they respond to stimuli, they reproduce (better stated, they are a product of reproduction: a sterile breed is obviously still considered to be alive), they grow and develop. Embryos are de facto considered to be alive. I certainly hope we don't have to argue that.

They also obey another rule from biology: the rule of biogenesis. Under this rule we recognize that dogs beget dogs, cats beget cats, and humans beget humans. Humans do *not* beget some creature that is not human that later becomes a human.

It follows that embryos are living humans. And the crux of the point you chose to ignore is whether these 'living humans' who are not necessarily conscious at this point still count. For the "religious right" (to borrow from an earlier generalization) it seems the belief tends to be that this is so.

"If you mean that it's an issue (and a problem) that a large part of the American public is taking a highly-emotional political position based on what amounts to a large number of partial truths and outright falsehoods, then you begin to understand."
If that's true, you have certainly failed to demonstrate that here. And as a side note, you aren't helping with politicization.

"Your problem is that the facts are opposite the stance you appear to be backing."
Certainly agressive with the rhetoric, aren't we?
If by "facts" you mean your personal spiel about the definition of abortion, well, tersely put, you haven't proven anything. And definitions aren't facts, they are rather arbitrary artifacts of human communication.
If by facts you mean the science related to the issue, you are again rather misguided. There is not, nor ever shall be, a

Re:So the Religious Right is Humpty Dumpty?

[jmccay]

Funny, in biology abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy. There are spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) and induced abortions. Induced abortions may be classified as therapeutic, elective or criminal.

You missed the point. The poster was talking about the personal religous beliefs of the religious right that life begins at conception--regardless of whether that conception is in a womb or otherwise. Thus disposing (or aborting) these fertilized eggs is considered murder. To abort means to end. There are definitions to words outside of your small biological world.
Whether you like it or not, these people are entitled to their beliefs and entitled to attempt to say how their tax dollars are spent--just as much as you are entitled to the same things. Just because they don't agree with you doesn't make them wrong. If you think otherwise, then maybe we should apply the same thinking to some cause you are pationate about.
I find it funny that what scientists consider to determine life really depends on the situation.

Re:So the Religious Right is Humpty Dumpty?

[AK Marc]

You missed the point. The poster was talking about the personal religous beliefs of the religious right that life begins at conception--regardless of whether that conception is in a womb or otherwise. Thus disposing (or aborting) these fertilized eggs is considered murder. To abort means to end. There are definitions to words outside of your small biological world.

And I think part of his point was that they are stupid or lying to use "abortion" to describe anything other than an aborted pregnancy. It is a specific term with a specific meaning. They are either too stupid to get it, or are purposefully lying to elicit an emotional response.

I'd be happier with "killing possible future babies" to "abortion." They may both be inflamitory, but only one of them is correct.

I find it funny that what scientists consider to determine life really depends on the situation.

I don't think that you will have scientists argue over whether a tree is alive. Despite the assertions to the opposite, there really is no confusion as to what "life" is. There is a small amount of debate as to when "viable" life begins, as well as a large amount of moral debate regarding when "life" (in a religious, not biological sense) begins.

Re:So the Religious Right is Humpty Dumpty?

[AK Marc]

After all, the debate sounds a lot different if you use "pro-life" instead of "anti-abortion."

Sure it does. But you have to ask yourself, what are the stances? I'm pro-life. It would be great if no one ever needed or had an abortion. I'm also a realist. Making it legal didn't increase the abortion rate. However, it did decrease the number of women dying from bad abortions. So, since it appears that they will happen anyway and safer when legal, I'm pro-choice.

So, I don't see pro-life and pro-choice as opposites. Pro-choice and anti-choice are the opposites. These are the two stances regarding whether it is legal. Separate is the question of whether it is recommended or morally right, which would be pro-abortion (or anti-life, if you choose) or pro-life.

Re:So the Religious Right is Humpty Dumpty?

[AME]

Making it legal didn't increase the abortion rate.

You're kidding, right? Can you point to any statistics that support this?

I don't see pro-life and pro-choice as opposites. Pro-choice and anti-choice are the opposites.

You betray your bias here in the same way as if you had claimed the proper opposites are "Pro-Life" and "Anti-Life." The most neutral I can think of off hand are "Pro-Abortion" and "Anti-Abortion" since that is what we are really talking about. Maybe we should split the difference: "Pro-Life/Pro-Choice" or "Anti-Choice/Anti-Life."

Also, the question of legality and of morality cannot be separated as you suggest, since legal is merely a codification of moral. (The reason that burglary is illegal is that we, on the whole, think that it is wrong, for example.)

Re:So the Religious Right is Humpty Dumpty?

[jmccay]

It is a specific term with a specific meaning.

Actually there are very few words in English that have just one meaning. The both are viable definitions of the word. Yours take the term strictly from a medical point of view. I think you are to stupid to understand this. I suggest you read a dictionary once. You might find more definitions for some words than you knew about.

I don't think that you will have scientists argue over whether a tree is alive.

I was talking about trees. I was talking about the search for life outside of the planet Earth. The definition of what constitutes life in these situations are suddenly loose compared to human life.

Re:So the Religious Right is Humpty Dumpty?

[AK Marc]

You betray your bias here in the same way as if you had claimed the proper opposites are "Pro-Life" and "Anti-Life." The most neutral I can think of off hand are "Pro-Abortion" and "Anti-Abortion" since that is what we are really talking about. Maybe we should split the difference: "Pro-Life/Pro-Choice" or "Anti-Choice/Anti-Life."

And I fully disagree. Take, for instance, my stance on drugs. I'm anti-drug. I'm pro-choice. I believe that all drugs (excepting those that directly affect others, like antibiotics) should be available OTC. I also believe that no person should elect to take a drug except for medicinal value. I am one "pro" and one "anti." Both "pro" or both "anti" positions would not be able to describe my stance on the issue.

It seems to be confusing to some that what should be done and what should be legal are different answers. They believe the law is to force others to their will. I pick an answer to both the practical view and the ideal view and support both. "Splitting the difference" isn't correct when I'm both pro-life and pro-choice, but neither anti-choice nor anti-life.

If you are for regulations preventing abortion, you are anti-choice. Your stance on life is irrelevant to your stance on legislation. It isn't about whether you are for or against the proceedure or life in general. It is about whether you are for or against the choice of others to have the proceedure (or murder, if you prefer - I don't really care what you call it). It is the choice and only the choice that is what legislators can affect.

(The reason that burglary is illegal is that we, on the whole, think that it is wrong, for example.)

Regardless of morality, I would want burglary made illegal. Even if I thought it was moral for someone to steal, it still supports my personal interests to prevent them from taking my things. Protection is not a moral choice, but still a valid reason for legislation.

Re:So the Religious Right is Humpty Dumpty?

[AME]

Your entire argument is duplicitous.

Re:So the Religious Right is Humpty Dumpty?

[AK Marc]

Your entire argument is duplicitous.

No, I'm not trying to decieve. I'm trying to accurately represent views with labels. Pro-life and pro-choice are not opposites. Views on abortion are not the same as views on the legality of abortion. Those two views are separate ideas, and since labels are use so extensively, they are divergent enough to warrent separate labels.

It seems that you either lack the mental flexibility to understand the distinction, or you don't like the implications of the distinction. Since you have brought up personal views in this discussion, I would have to guess the latter. Hey, if I was a fanatic, it'd be pro-life and pro-slavery...

Re:So the Religious Right is Humpty Dumpty?

[AME]

I did not say you were trying to deceive. That's only one definition of "Duplicitous."

I was, however, referring to your argument that you should be lawfully protected from burglary, not because it's wrong, but because it, "Supports your personal interests." But an unborn child should not be afforded protection from abortion because that is a matter of choice.

Hmmm... Now that I think about it further, I see that you may be saying that the fetus should not be protected from abortion because it serves your personal interests. Perhaps your line of thinking is not so duplicitous after all.

Re:So the Religious Right is Humpty Dumpty?

[AK Marc]

I was, however, referring to your argument that you should be lawfully protected from burglary, not because it's wrong, but because it, "Supports your personal interests." But an unborn child should not be afforded protection from abortion because that is a matter of choice.

I never made any such statement. You referred to "morals" as the basis of law, and I disagreed with an example. It is not logical to extract one example of why I think your assertion of a moral basis of all laws and apply it one specific point of an issue unrelated to the example you used.

The separate issue you are skirting is what to do with the religious/moral issues of abortion, which I have purposefully avoided because there is nothing that can be said in a forum like this that will change someone's religious and moral values. It would be a waste of time. The only logical thing to do is accept the differences and try to figure the best way to integrate both sets of values into society.

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[Raunch]

For some reason, once the baby clears the birth canal, murdering it is wrong.

To start it's the second trimester, not when the baby clears the birth canal.
Furthermore what I cannot understand is this: For some reason as soon as the sperm touches the egg; killing the embryo is murder, but killing an oocyte(unfertilized embryo) or a sperm is not.

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[wo1verin3]

I would have mod'd you up if I had point, I'm tired of people modding down others for opinion. It was opinion, not flamebait.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Phillup]

Q: Was there funding at some point in time?

If so...

Q: Is the funding less now than it was at some point in time?

If so...

Q: Who reduced the funding?

criminal purposes

[Doc Ruby]

Whose purpose? The "purpose" of sex is to make a baby, so rubbers are illegal? All those living, human sperm cells (and that lonely egg cell), doomed to death when they were faithfully obeying their purpose. The purpose of marriage is to make a baby, so childless couples are criminals - divorce is a crime, girls who don't put out on dates where my purpose is to get laid are criminals.

Re:criminal purposes

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Hi strawman, lovely to see you again.

Really have to go tho - I'm having a discussion about embroyos and don't have a taste for red herring today...

ta Ta..

Re:criminal purposes

[Doc Ruby]

Give my love to Denial. When you get back, I'll be happy to introduce you to Purpose, whose name you keep dropping.

Re:criminal purposes

[the_Bionic_lemming]

I'll try - but I think they live in your alternate reality.

Now - Back to the embroyo...

Re:criminal purposes

[Doc Ruby]

Yep, here in reality, "purposes" are made by people, who don't turn masses of cells into people by merely asserting "purpose". That takes time, and important changes to the cells. Just like turning sex into embryos takes more than purpose. Now back to your regularly scheduled fantasy (reality alternative) , where "purpose" is more important than reality.

Re:criminal purposes

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Now I see why you needed the red herring - I had no idea that you were defining "purpose" to fit your own needs. What's next? A dissertation on the word "is"?

Re:criminal purposes

[sydres]

"Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good, if a sperm gets wasted God gets quite Irate"

Re:criminal purposes

[Doc Ruby]

Let's have an actual counterargument to my reductio ad absurdum of this "purpose" nonsense. Of course you can't muster one, Anonymous know-nothing Coward.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[TGK]

"The potential of embryonic stem cells became apparent in the late 1990s, and in 2000 the National Institutes of Health announced that it would fund stem-cell research as long as the actual extraction of cells from embryos was done by someone else. President Clinton strongly supported this policy." [Source]

And if you think Slate is too liberal a source to trust on this, here's a venom spitting concervitive to back me up.

"the feds are not going to actually get involved -- will not spend appropriated funds -- until after the pluripotent stem cells have been already recovered from the process." [Source]

I think we can safely take the above paragraph to indicate that Clinton approved the use of federal funds to research embryonic stem cells, though did not approve said funds to actualy extract the cells.

Anything else you need me to prove?

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[operagost]

Stem cell research began during the Clinton administration and he didn't do anything.

Re:A neocon plot to kill repblicans?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

OK, I'm stumped. How does a ban on federal funding for new stem cell lines amount to government intruding into these areas?

Federalism.

The federal government levies far too much in taxes. As a result, states cannot tax enough to cover their needs. The federal government then doles out cash according to which states will do what they are told. This effectively castrates state power, leaving them completely beholden to the federal government for funding. Likewise with local government, and research institutes, universities, and charities. All are dependent upon federal funds because federal taxes are collected at such high levels, then handed back in the form of grants.

Right after Bush was re-elected in 04, the research facility down the street cancelled tons of programs, as their federal funding (which accounts for more than half their budget) was cut by 50%. Why should the president allocate this funding? Why is it not collected by the state here? Why is it not collected directly in the form of donations? The reason is consolidation of power. Those with power want more power. They get this by taking over more functions and controlling all the money. This is easy for the feds since all they have to do is raise taxes and increase their payouts. At this rate, in 100 years the government will be collecting 50% income tax and subsidizing the price of all our foods.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[charlieo88]

Do you want to put a stop to sex too? Cause that form of fertilization is pretty hit or miss too.

vampires

[Doc Ruby]

Another example of Red States sponging off the benefit of work done by Blue States for the common good. One way compassion!

Re:MOD PARENT UP! Animal embryonic stem cells fund

[over_exposed]

*ahem*
Umm, you forgot to click the "Post Anonymously" button on that one buddy...

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[shaitand]

It's simple, once born we are human beings and a sack of cells can be called a baby. Inside the womb we call it a sack of cells.

If you want to know the real truth the only reason we are willing to acknowledge the term baby after birth is due to bleeding hearts who believe that *gasp* their own species is special and unique when the truth is that at no age does it become more than a sack of genetic material. Slugs are sacks of genetic material, Dolphins are sacks of genetic material, and humans are sacks of genetic material.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[DavidTC]

You know, nothing in my morals has a clause that says 'if the Federal government funds it'. If something's immoral, people shouldn't do it. They shouldn't deny one specific type of funding into research that uses a side effect of the immoral action.

That's akin to having rape, legal, but setting up the inheritence laws so that the rapists can't end up with any assets of the victim if they produce a child with them, and then the victim and then the child dies. It really doesn't seem to make any sense at all to even bother with that law.

Not that I'm saying abortion is immoral, I'm just saying, if it was, it doesn't really make any sense to ban stem cell research.

In fact, the only thing I can think of with a clause like 'if the Federal government funds it' is the 1st amendment, where it forbids an establishment of religion. Hrm.

And if those voters have their facts wrong?

[Engineer-Poet]

Ideas have consequences. Voting based on faulty ideas (no matter how high-minded the holder) can lead to terrible outcomes; it's trivial to come up with many examples from the 20th century. Sure, you can win elections based on propaganda built on distortions. You can take power. What you can't do is escape the trap that you've laid for yourself.

"If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." -- Anatole France.

"It remains foolish even if the majority votes for it." -- me

Re:"Outlawed"?

[Raunch]

Specifially that any reasearcher at an institute, lab, or institute that received federal money could not (on penalty of losing all federal funding) engage in any stem cell research (except the known contaminated lines).

If there is stem cell research going on all federal dollard are cut including the carbon nanotubes at the other end of campus.

This has (for 99.9% of the labs) the exact same effect, so the difference between outlawed and denied federal funding is minor and trivial at best.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Phillup]

without crossing a fundamental moral line

What line would that be?

And...

If it is so "fundamental" then why in the hell do I have to ask that question?

I don't see any moral problem here.

And... if the destruction of life is so f*scking "immoral"... what about that whole Iraq thing? Why in the hell are we using taxpayer dollars for that?

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[MoonBuggy]

For the purposes of this post I will treat these embryos as if they are a human life. Whether I believe this myself is not an issue, since I am trying to see this from Bush's point of view and he clearly sees them as 'hav[ing] the potential for life'.

President Bush made the decision to attack Iraq and has justified that by saying that the war is beneficial to the Iraqis in the end as it brings them democracy. His opinion therefore must be that the benefit of life without pain and persecution for the many now and all those who will live there in the future is worth the sacrafice of a few thousand actual, adult, human lives. All of this was done using many billions of tax dollars.

President Bush accepts that stem cell research has 'promise and potential' for saving lives and relieveing pain by forming treatments for currently incurable conditions. Some embryos need to be sacraficed (not really my first choice of words, but it illustrates the point) to benefit the many now and all in the future. Yet Bush now thinks that saving the potential lives of the few outweigh the benefits to the many, at least where tax money is concerned.

Whether you agree or disagree with me on either of these issues, don't you think that this is a serious case of double-standards?

new biggie

[Doc Ruby]

No, we'll just invest our money in India, where it will go much further, building huge university hospitals there when US subsidy money is stopped. Can you say "University Rust Belt"?

Re:ahem...

[ChaoticLimbs]

Wow, did you make up that $0 figure all by yourself?
I mean, it's awful nice to be able to stroll into any forum and instantly attain the rank of expert in whatever topic is breached. Die, troll, die.
There is plenty of private money used in many kinds of research. If the field looks promising, the money follows. You did know that there is a lot of money to be made in curing diseases, didn't you?

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[JohnFluxx]

below average intelligence = 50% of the voting population.

This is why ... :0

Re:Sigh

[TGK]

No, he wasn't. Clinton funded research as of 2000 on embryonic stem cells, though would not allow said cells to be extracted with federal funds. Because these stem cell lines were new to the federal research budget, this represented federal funding of new stem cell lines.

Bush has eliminated funding from new stem cell lines.

Q.E.D. - Bush has reduced federal funding for new stem cell lines.

Moral of the story, do your own research rather than just believing what Bill O'Riley and Fox News tell you.

Those against abortion... like slavery

[jgardn]

The people that were most vehemently opposed to slavery at the time were the right-wing conservative fundamentalist Christians. You know, the type that go around preaching "Repent or go to hell!" The type that label things "right" or "wrong" with nothing in between? The less religious and atheists in the nation couldn't care less about slavery, either way. It's interesting that nowadays everybody considers slavery abominable, even those who abhor fundamentalist Christians.

The Southerners had to indoctrinate themselves that owning slaves was a moral obligation. They believed that they white race was superior to the black, and that without the guidance of the white man, that the black man would be savage. As offensive as this idea is today, it was common, and was still common, up until a few decades ago.

Today, fundamentalist, right-wing, repent-or-go-to-hell types are again preaching that abortion is wrong. The atheists and less religious are ambivalent towards it. It's only a few who actually believe that abortion is a right that absolutely must be defended by the constitution. They convince themselves that the "tissue" is not human, and that the mother has the ultimate freedom to determine whether the tissue should be removed or remain a parasite.

All I'm saying is in a few years time, when abortion rights are no longer found in our founding documents, and when the fundamentalists are able to convince a large majority, that we will look back on abortion like we look back on slavery today.

Re:Those against abortion... like slavery

[gnuLNX]

"All I'm saying is in a few years time, when abortion rights are no longer found in our founding documents, and when the fundamentalists are able to convince a large majority, that we will look back on abortion like we look back on slavery today."

I highly doubt this. Unless you honestly believe that a raped woman should have to bear the birth of her rapist. Also Abortion is hear to stay until such time as humanity has determined who can have a child as well as when. You see abortion serves a purpous to society...right or wrong it serves a purpose. If it did not then it would not be there.

Don't get me wrong I am not totally justifying determining who can have a child, but in the future...long after our time the world will be way over populated and this will be an issue.

Abortion in early stages is simply not wrong. You see it as taking a life, but the woman going through it sees it as gaining HER life back. Who are we to impose the burden of raising a child on someone....before you answer who are we to tell another human not to have sex? I am neigther for it nor against it, but I honestly see those that are against it as being extreme along the lines of some of the islamic extremests.

Re:Those against abortion... like slavery

[chialea]

>The people that were most vehemently opposed to slavery at the time were the right-wing conservative fundamentalist Christians. You know, the type that go around preaching "Repent or go to hell!"

One word: Quakers.

Lea

Re:Those against abortion... like slavery

[gnuLNX]

I am for it because people like you should have been aborted.

Research does not have to stop.

[$criptah]

There are two things that puzzle me about the United States of America: fear of human sexuality and fear of progress.

Blowing things up on TV and showing violence on the news is okay. People start complaining only if a part of a naked female body appears on the tube or if those *damn* scientists try yet another method that could potentially save us from suffering and premature death. Whoever thinks that U.S. is a country of freedom has never tried to get an abortion in Mississippi or teach evolution in Georgia's public schools. I do not even want to start talking about stem cells...

Although federal funding is cut, I suspect that it will not stop research in the long run. I hope that my state decides to follow California and raise its own money for embryonic stem cell research. And if I ever become a millionaire, I know where I am going to spend my money. Moreover, you do not have to be rich in order to achieve something. Although I do not have education in biotechnology and other related fields, I think that there are some kids at MIT and Harvard that can achive something that I can't. If we provide enough financial support through small donations, we can fund public labs that rely on money, not religious influence of our government. If this country was able to raise millions of dollars for the victims of the recent tsunami, I believe we can rase enough money for small scientific projects. Once these projects start returnig results, companies will jump on the bandwagon and the industry will be able to support itself without Mr. Bible's say.

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[networkBoy]

@ AC:
Aside from spelling errors that are bound to happen when frothing at the mouth (I do it too), I have several issues with your post:

so you support partial birth abortions and later term abortions??? you just saisd to because you are pro-choice.
RTFP: I personally do not support any abortion, I just refuse to force others to my will.

Why are you against adding a qualifier that states "in instances of medical emergency or extenuating circumstances such as incest or rape?"
Because something will happen, that is not covered by the law, yet would merit an abortion. The doctors will refuse to treat the woman without a court order, which may take forever, thus said woman goes to an alley and someone with a coat hanger does it. Very very bad.

a woman has the right to murder her child because it's birth might interffere with her career or the carribian cruise she wants to go on?
Unfortunately, yes. I know someone who effectively did this. I do not know how she can stand to live. My daughter would be almost the same age as her child. If I were in her shoes I would break out in tears every time I saw a child the age of what mine would have been.

most anti-abortion people are interested in removeing the "convienence" abortions and the blatent infancide that happens after the second trimester and the most horrible partial birth abortions.
I'm sorry you are so mistaken. Most pro-choice people (in fact all those I know except the one mentioned above), simply do not want to legislate morality. This is my case.

Are you are a sick motherfucker that is happy to lie to himself? or are you going to start voting for and rallying for what is really needed?

support abortion laws that make sense, rally against the sick and horrible shit that is in place right now."
I do not see how I am lying to myself, but come what may I will fight any law that attempts to dictate morality, abridge free speech, take away my right to keep and bear arms (I do not own a gun BTW), or otherwise pollute the courts with invalid or unconstitutional laws (God I feel out of place living in California).
-nB

I believe I'm right

[Doc Ruby]

If you believe that life begins at conception, then miscarriages are murder. And I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you - it runs right past the Watchtower HQ. BTW, how many precious lifeforms have you adopted, compared to the number of people's lives you're dooming to misery?

Re:I believe I'm right

[RailGunner]

Miscarriages are clearly not murder, as there was no intent to kill. With an abortion, there is a clear intent to terminate the pregnancy, therefore it is murder.

Isn't logic fun?

Re:I believe I'm right

[Doc Ruby]

Ah, so miscarriages are merely 3rd degree murder. Of course not - the false predicate is that the fetus is a person, just like mastectomy is not murder of the tumor. Isn't logic compelling, when it's complete?

Re:I believe I'm right

[MooseByte]

"Miscarriages are clearly not murder, as there was no intent to kill. With an abortion, there is a clear intent to terminate the pregnancy, therefore it is murder."

So then by your argument, miscarriage would be manslaughter?

"Isn't logic fun?"

Especially when a counter-argument ends up reinforcing the point it's trying to refute. ;-)

Re:I believe I'm right

[Doc Ruby]

You failed even worse to respond to my question about how many "precious lifeforms" you've adopted, rather than see them "killed" before birth, or lead miserable lives. Could it be that your idea of "logic" and "precious" is just word games, regardless of the welfare of the "people" you use as playing pieces?

Re:I believe I'm right

[RailGunner]

Except that for manslaughter you have to prove neglect.

Re:I believe I'm right

[RailGunner]

But the problem with your logic is when you deny that the fetus is a person, and by person I mean a human life.

And clearly, at the time of conception, a life form with a complete HUMAN DNA sequence, different from either parent, is formed. It is a human life, this is a fact, not a false predicate, regardless of what your opinion on the matter is.

Again - for a miscarriage to be manslaughter there would have to be proof of negligence. With abortion, there is a clear intent to kill.

Also, Tumors, while alive, are not people - just an "organ". You can't equate a tumor to a child.

Re:I believe I'm right

[RailGunner]

Whether or not I or anyone else have personally adopted a child is completely out of scope as to the question of whether or not abortion or stem cell research is wrong. It's a diversionary tactic, and I think you're smart enough to know that.

And who are you to decide whether someone should live or die based on what you perceive their living conditions to be? Is being miserable a case for getting killed?

"Oh well, this kids was going to have a rough life, better to die." - as if your life has been completely perfect?

How callous.

Re:I believe I'm right

[MooseByte]

"Except that for manslaughter you have to prove neglect."

And what if that poor woman has a history of miscarriages? If, as the fundamentalists claim, abortion is murder, then what if a woman gets pregnant knowing she's very likely to miscarry?

Is someone going to start a hate website focusing on her, or threaten to bomb her house?

Re:I believe I'm right

[RailGunner]

That is completely and utterly absurd - this woman is desperately trying to bring a life into this world, and is committing no crime or sin.

There's a big difference between a miscarriage, even given a history of miscarriages, and deciding to kill your child because it's inconvenient.

Go back under the bridge, troll.

Re:I believe I'm right

[MooseByte]

First you assert:

"at the time of conception, a life form with a complete HUMAN DNA sequence, different from either parent, is formed. It is a human life, this is a fact, not a false predicate, regardless of what your opinion on the matter is."

And then you say...

"Tumors, while alive, are not people - just an "organ"."

My biology may be a little weak, but I was under the impression that tumor cells had a "complete HUMAN DNA sequence" as well. Since that is your core assertion as to the concept of what constitutes a "human life", it seems a bit contradictory.

"You can't equate a tumor to a child. "

I think you just did.

Re:I believe I'm right

[MooseByte]

"Go back under the bridge, troll."

Calling someone a troll doesn't remove the dilemma you have in explaining the contradiction. Pouting, picking up your ball, and running home is your choice. (And not a rare response from fundamentalists.) You're the one who invoked logic in your defense, however. So now you can logically explain the difference for all of us to understand.

If you believe abortion is murder, then miscarriage is something you need to explain. What if a woman has a genetic defect that causes the fetus to automatically miscarry at the end of the 1st trimester? And not believing her doctors, she keeps trying?

Each and every "viable human life" you refer to is going to die three months into it. Guaranteed.

If abortion is murder, where do you judge this woman? If, as you say, "murder relies on intent", where does "ending a life through willful negligence" fit in your book?

Re:I believe I'm right

[Doc Ruby]

That tumor has the complete human DNA sequence. But it's not a person, it's like an organ, though different (usually a single kind of undifferentiated tissue). Just like a fetus.

Re:I believe I'm right

[Doc Ruby]

No, inevitably becoming nothing but miserable is a case for never becoming a person. Like preventing responsible parents from having a child. Or aborting an insupportable fetus.

Whether you have adopted a child is a decent test for putting your money, your time, your own life where your mouth is. Your rhetoric is part of the trendy process of preventing women from keeping their lives, and the lives of the children they choose to have, from a chance at freedom from misery. But while you'll take that away from them, you won't pay the price of adopting one of those "precious lifeforms". They're precious enough for you to rant about them, but not precious enough for you to actually sacrifice anything at all to help them. So they're obviously not precious to you - it's just the rhetorical device you justify your political speech with. While children suffer.

Re:I believe I'm right

[spamsk8r]

But the tumor has the same DNA sequence as the host, whereas a fetus has a different, unique DNA sequence, and thus is not actually a part of the mother. It can't live on its own outside the womb, but it's still a person.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[erlenic]

Never quite saw it that way. I just might use that in a different situation :)

I don't know if you actually read those journal entries, but both are obvious humor (at least obvious to me) besides, both are almost 4 years old. They're just something I saw in e-mails, and posted here because I didn't want to lose them.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[plague3106]

Viable embroys that are not wanted otherwise.

You act as if there are women getting pregnant to cell their embroys for research. This is not the case. They are going to be aborted anyway.

Where's the logic ???

[Dave21212]

I've seen about a hundred posts arguing about why or why not the research is something that is equivalent to killing babies, and as many arguing the federal research ban only stops institutions asking for money for the research...

First, to get it out of the way, the "ban" is not a law against research, but a funding rule that is implemented such that any facility receiving federal dollars (every public hospital, college, reasearch center, ~99.9% of the US research facilities) is barred from conducting the research on new lines. If you get federal dollars for anything at the facility, you can't do the research, period.


Now, the type of stem-cell reseach being debated uses discarded eggs from In-Vitro Fertilization. Regarding the radical right religious regime's belief that a Day 5 blastocyst is a person, complete with a soul, etc... Sure, if they want to 'believe' this, they can. The problem arises when they try to selectively (read: politically) apply laws to support their religious beliefs.

Apparently, many people (including a bunch of folks here on /.) believe that stem-cell research is a crime because babies get killed in the process. Here's a news-flash, as part of any IVF cycle, there are some fertilized eggs that are implanted, and some that are not. The extras are either put into cryo, or more often simply destroyed. (Some of those are donated to test the nutrient medium that's used - basically if they don't survive, that batch of medium is bad, if they do survive they are discarded anyway). To give you an example, during an IVF cycle, there might be 17 eggs retrieved, of them 16 fertilize, of them 12 make it to day 3, then of them only 2-3 are implanted (the other 9-10 go to Day-5 then get destroyed). Instead of being forced to destroy them, people should have the freedom to donate them to stem-cell research if their beliefs allow.

So, shouldn't the radical right religious regime be even more adamantly against IVF ? While a handful of cells used in research seems to get them in a panic, they ignore the simple fact that thousands of fertilized eggs are destroyed every month as part of normal IVF treatments. Why aren't they calling for the elimination of fertility clinics ? Are these couples who pursue IVF mass-murders ?

Where's the logic here ? If stem-cell research should be banned because allowing a Day-5 blast to arrest is killing a baby, why do they not have any issue with, or even debate over the effects of the IVF treatments where the stem-cells for this research are obtained ?

Re:Where's the logic ???

[SDF-7]

I don't know what qualifies as "adamant" to you -- but the Catholic Church has what seems to me to be a consistent position.

Queue the Monty Python's "Meaning of Life" quoters, I'm sure... but the Church is logical enough starting from their base assumptions.

Re:Where's the logic ???

[Dave21212]

Thanks - that's a great link.

I can see the logic in the position the CHURCH takes, but the logic in the way the laws/rules are being lobbied just doesn't hold up. Not that I'm hoping they start trying to ban IVF, I just don't see why the radicals would be so focused on such a particular element of a highly specialized research, while ignoring what's right in front of their faces (the source of the stem cells still exists).

Yet another reason to ignore those political arguments. Personally I think they are a red herring to keep 'religious' people busy with something other than the wars, poverty, etc...

Re:Where's the logic ???

[Dave21212]

Thanks for reading... I know it's just way too much to ask for those radicals (not yourself of course) to have a coherent message - I think that they are just being used and parrot whatever they are told by the TV/Magazines/Radio.

Re:Where's the logic ???

[Laser Lou]

Regarding the radical right religious regime's belief that a Day 5 blastocyst is a person, complete with a soul, etc...
Is there any scientific evidence that a Day 5 blastocyst is NOT a live human being?

Apparently, many people (including a bunch of folks here on /.) believe that stem-cell research is a crime because babies get killed in the process
I'm probably not in full agreement with anyone on this point; I may be wrong, but I think the embroyo's cells aren't killed, but transformed, so I'm not comfortable with saying that the embroyo is killed. however, I am comfortable with saying that the fact that embroyonic stem cells come from human embroyos bothers me, whether or not they could have possibly survived.

So, shouldn't the radical right religious regime be even more adamantly against IVF
How can pro-life groups be against IVF, if it results in birth?

Re:Where's the logic ???

[Obfuscant]

If you get federal dollars for anything at the facility, you can't do the research, period.

Incorrect. That is not what the order says.

Now, the type of stem-cell reseach being debated uses discarded eggs from In-Vitro Fertilization.

Incorrect again. That is not the only source of embryonic stem cells, but it is the only source for which federal funding is allowed.

Apparently, many people (including a bunch of folks here on /.) believe that stem-cell research is a crime because babies get killed in the process.

Apparently the /. editor thinks it is a crime, but that's because he didn't read the order and doesn't understand what it says.

Where's the logic here ? If stem-cell research should be banned ...

Nothing in the executive order says that research has been banned. Where's the logic of twisting a ban on federal funding of research into a ban on that research? Private funding is still allowed, and certainly "federal" funding by other governments than the US is still allowed. How is this suddenly a "ban" on research?

Re:Where's the logic ???

[Dave21212]

Incorrect. That is not what the order says.

Maybe you should read it slower, or perhaps you should read supporting information as to how it is interpreted and implemented. Maybe Bush wants to privatize it so his corporate cronies can profit ?

Where's the logic of twisting a ban on federal funding of research into a ban on that research?

See above, and I'm not twisting anything... I'm used to this with the articles, but RTFP - read the parent post again. I made it quite clear that it's a funding rule.

Re:Where's the logic ???

[Dave21212]

Is there any scientific evidence that a Day 5 blastocyst is NOT a live human being?

Um, yeah. A blastocyst is undifferentiated. No heart, no parts, just a blob of cells. Do you think your sperm are little people ?

How can pro-life groups be against IVF, if it results in birth?

They are against it because fertilized eggs are destroyed in the process. Some more here, and a few notes on blasts as well.

Re:Where's the logic ???

[ikkonoishi]

The funding issue was basically to prevent one thing and one thing only.

The possibility that people might simply accept semen and egg donations(Or purchase them), and then fertilize the eggs for the sole purpose of harvesting them for stem cells. That would be an extremely unethical thing comparable to adopting kids just to harvest them for their organs.

Re:Where's the logic ???

[Dave21212]

And how do you arrive at that conclusion, or are you a troll perhaps ?

This issue is clear in the fact that it deals with the use of donated eggs from IVF to start new lines. It's effectively banned in the USA (apologies to 2 Live Crew). I've never even heard a technique like that suggested, and I doubt any doctor would do it.

Re:Where's the logic ???

[Laser Lou]

Um, yeah. A blastocyst is undifferentiated. No heart, no parts, just a blob of cells

They're still live human cells, and its still called an "embroyo" which "is an animal or a plant in its earliest stage of development." Why can't we call an human embroyo a "human in its earliest stage of development?"
Here's another way of looking at it; weren't we all blastocysts at one point?

Do you think your sperm are little people ?
Sperm contain only half of a human's DNA, so that removes any basis for calling them "little people"

They are against it because fertilized eggs are destroyed in the process
Fertilized eggs are not destroyed in the IVF process. They can be destroyed if the couple agrees to that, and some may die on their own, but its not a required part of the procedure.
Also, some are against it because of those that die or are destroyed, but that opposition doesn't seem to be universal in pro-life groups.

Re:Where's the logic ???

[tehdaemon]

Ok. If it is human, how many humans is it?

Split it in half, and you can get twins - this is how identical twins happen in the first place. It can be split several times and each blob of cells can form a person. (I do not know how many splits, less than 10 I would guess)

It gets worse - take two of them, squish them together and you get one person. And all of the cells lived. So, which (or how many!) people did you kill? People formed from embryos like this are called chimeras. Unless the two embryos are of different genders, they are healthy and normal.

I do not think that our current definition of human is precice enough to let us say when a new human starts. Most of the debates go like this one has, where someone says 'An embryo is not a person because it has no heart/brain etc yet', implying that 'has a (human) heart' is the definition of human, and someone replies 'but it has a complete set of human DNA' implying that 'complete human DNA' is the definition of a human. I have yet to see a convincing definition of human, and until we have one, the debate cannot be settled.

Re:Where's the logic ???

[Ironsides]

I have yet to see a convincing definition of human, and until we have one, the debate cannot be settled.

I have yet to see a convincing definition of "alive" as well. That may help with defining "human".

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[networkBoy]

This is about the only case where it makes sense (often can't tell / don't realize sooner in the pregnancy that something this severe is wrong).
It still does not take away the gruesome aspects of what it is.
-nB

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[shaitand]

Life is not the issue. When you mow your lawn your mass murdering if you believe it's about life. It's about when it becomes human, specifically when it becomes an individual human.

If you believe that fertilized eggs are human individuals then you believe that the body itself is the biggest murderer since it aborts far more fertizilized eggs than it lets be born. The number of abortions performed by womens bodies dwarfs what the clinics do.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[wwest4]

Actually, the example is flawed because hair isn't made up of cells.

> An embroyo on the other hand is a life, and cutting it would be a crime.

Your example is flawed because taking life is not always a crime. If it were, I would be guilty of crimes against... um... lettuce, for example.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Doc Ruby]

No, they believe that life ends at draft age.

'Democratic governance invariably digs'?

[crovira]

Uh, where was the budget in 2000? With a surplus? Balanced? $500,000,000,000 in the red?

The dems are not the ones who put us $500,000,000,000/year in the hole. That $500b/year that we've had to borrow. We've borrowed that much and we will have to pay it back, with interest.

I'm surprised that you don't advocate for the kidnapping of women off the sidewalks and forcing thye to have an abortion, whether they wanted on or not.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Rei]

Not really true.

The ban (in place since 1995) was pushed through as a rider on an appropriation bill by the GOP. NIH sought help from HHS on how the ban applied; in 1999, HHS responded that research on stem cells can be funded by NIH (public funds) so long as the stem cells themselves were produced via private funds. In short, so long as government funds weren't used for the first step, any ethical research could be conducted. Government funds *were* going into research on these cells, just not at the creation stage.

However, under the Bush guidelines, this is changed. If the stem cells are not part of the original "64" lines (not really 64 lines, but that's beside the point), no government funding can go into research involving them. So, apart from the fact that it doesn't change the fact that government funds couldn't be used for the creation of stem cell lines, it bans research on any line that hasn't already been created - in short, making it a more restrictive policy, not less.

Here's some details about the history of the lines and their current status:

AAAS Policy Brief: Stem Cell Research

It also explains why there is animal contamination.

Contaminated Cells

[dr_dank]

make for a convenient argument for the right-wing zealots who think embryonic cells are better off in the garbage than possibly improving people's quality of life.

By cutting off all funding for research using new stem cell lines and forcing labs to rely on the contaminated ones, they can point to the inevitably failed experiments and say "See? It wasn't going to work anyway".

Re:ahem...

[nuggetman]

notice i said correct me if im wrong. we know bush isn't funding it and i hadn't heard much of private companies contributing, which i was also corrected on.

kiss my ass

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Fine, for the "Nit Pickers" I'll change the word "Life" for "Human Life".

Next?

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[TGK]

No, we liberals keep loosing elections because, as Plato said

"If you allow the people to choose their rulers they will elect fools and naives"

In this particular case, we seem to have rolled these two undesirable caricatures into one candidate and elected him President.

Why didn't you mention...

[gillbates]

That non-embrionic stem cells are already being used in the United States, today, to cure illnesses?

It's amazing that people are continuing to push for embrionic stem cell research - which to date has shown no serious prospect of curing people - when we are already using non-embrionic stem cells in clinical trials to cure people.

I could understand the debate if embrionic stem cells were actually better than non-embrionic stem cells, or showed more promise for curing disease, but they don't. People are already being cured of diseases such as Parkinson's using non-embrionic stem cell therapies.

The push for embrionic stem cell research is just plain immoral. Even were it to provide the cures its proponents claim, it would still come at the moral expense of having a human being arbitrarily decide who should live, and who should die. Thus, human life will be viewed not as something sacred or sacrosanct, but rather in terms of the its value to society; and the criterion of this judgement will be based not upon some objective standard, but rather on whatever is most expedient for those in power. To push for embrionic stem cell research is to regard the dignity of persons to be worth less than the value of scientific research. Furthermore, it bastardizes science in that rather than science being judged in light of its contribution to humanity, humanity is judged in light of its contribution to science. Science should exist to service humanity, not the other way around.

Re:Why didn't you mention...

[Effugas]

First of all, embryonic.

Secondly, don't believe the hype. One of the things we learned from Dolly (the cloned sheep) is that adult cells are quite different than fetal cells -- the loss of telomeres creates significant problems with aging and long term survival. We don't know entirely how stem cells are going to work; from the article, the Chinese have already abandoned them in favor of nasal cells from four month old fetuses. (In a counterpoint, I've read there are attempts to harvest the same cells from adults. It might work.)

Fundamentally, we don't really know what cures we're going to get out of stem cells. But this isn't an argument about whether they'll work or not; like you say, it's an argument about whether it's right to take the cells from fetuses. What I'm saying is that if a cure is found, the ethics will be rewritten, because while a fetus might be human, a six year old child and a seventy two year old grandfather definitely are.

So that's the fight. That's why you started by insisting that embryonic cells are useless. That's why the non-embryonic studies are getting funded so richly. Your only hope really is that the non-embryonic cures will be so fantastically effective that embryo-harvesting approaches won't be able to keep up. This is imaginable -- reimplanting one's own stem cells neatly avoids all sorts of rejection issues -- but it's not likely.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Sheepdot]

1. Bush "cut federal funding" "stem cell"

Interesting. This is a complete lie, yet people love to write about it.

2. Bush "begins federal funding" "stem cell"

Hmm.. The religious right sure seems pissed.

3. Bush "starts federal funding" "stem cell"

The first ever President to start federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research and he doesn't even get mention?

4. Bush "allows federal funding" "stem cell"

Ahhh.. another "true" tidbit, at 343 hits, it beats 213 to come out as the winner. But not only did Bush "allow" federal funding, he started it. You'd think if the religious right was the one spreading the disinformation they'd be at least a bit peeved about that.

They've been using aborted babies for private stem cell research for years, you never heard about this issue (at least from them) till the idea of federally funding it came up.

You can be pro-choice and still be against federal funding for abortions, you can be pro-life and still not care if some woman you will never meet decides to abort. It's actually a great deal more middle of the road than just saying "pro-choice" and "pro-life". Where's the "pro-whocare'sIjustwanttokeepmymoney" aspect?

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[cayenne8]

"The example is fatally flawed - the purpose of a hair is not to become a baby, so therefore it's ok to cut - An embroyo on the other hand is a life, and cutting it would be a crime."

Well, at the earliest stages of the embryo, the cells (stem cells) are not differentiated enough for you to tell which is a hair cell, or a liver cell, or an eye cell. That's the point...they are all cells with potential, but, are not live or a living human...just a grouping of cells that, if all goes well, have the potential to differentiate and become a human....

Old news

[cybergrue]

The fact that most of the 'legal' stem cell lines were contaminated with animal products was well known back in 2001. Doonesbury even did a series of strips where Duke was selling a line that just happened not to have been contaminated in this way. I would link to the aforementioned strip, but Doonesbury seems to have changed its policy on viewing past strips to something I can't link to.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[RailGunner]

Sigh.. here we go again.

Miscarriages clearly are not murder since there is no intent to kill. Abortions are intending to terminate a pregnancy, therefore it's murder.

And this is about human life - trying to equate human life with any plant or animal life is utterly ridiculous.

And last time I mowed, the grass stayed alive and grew back...

It's about when it becomes human, specifically when it becomes an individual human.

At conception, a new living organism is created that has a DNA sequence different from either parent - that DNA sequence is human - therefore, it's a human life. And that's what this is all about, isn't it.

Sorry - all of your points are invalid (like the rest of liberalism and secular humanism is...).

Where is the logic in the argument ?

[Dave21212]

I've seen about a hundred posts arguing about why or why not the research is something that is equivalent to killing babies, and as many arguing the federal research ban only stops institutions asking for money for the research...

First, to get it out of the way, the "ban" is not a law against research, but a funding rule that is implemented such that any facility receiving federal dollars (every public hospital, college, research center, ~99.9% of the US research facilities) is barred from conducting the research on new lines. If you get federal dollars for anything at the facility, you can't do the research, period.


Now, the type of stem-cell research being debated uses discarded eggs from In-Vitro Fertilization. Regarding the radical right religious regime's belief that a Day 5 blastocyst is a person, complete with a soul, etc... Sure, if they want to 'believe' this, they can. The problem arises when they try to selectively (read: politically) apply laws to support their religious beliefs.

Apparently, many people (including a bunch of folks here on /.) believe that stem-cell research is a crime because babies get killed in the process. Here's a news-flash, as part of any IVF cycle, there are some fertilized eggs that are implanted, and some that are not. The extras are either put into cryo, or more often simply destroyed. (Some of those are donated to test the nutrient medium that's used - basically if they don't survive, that batch of medium is bad, if they do survive they are discarded). To give you an example, during an IVF cycle, there might be 17 eggs retrieved, of them 16 fertilize, of them 12 make it to day 3, then of them only 2-3 are implanted (the other 9-10 go to Day-5 then get destroyed). Instead of being forced to destroy them, people should have the freedom to donate them to stem-cell research if their beliefs allow.

So, shouldn't the radical right religious regime be even more adamantly against IVF ? While a handful of cells used in research seems to get them in a panic, they ignore the simple fact that thousands of fertilized eggs are destroyed every month as part of normal IVF treatments. Why aren't they calling for the elimination of fertility clinics ? Are these couples who pursue IVF mass-murderers ?

Where's the logic here ? If stem-cell research should be banned because allowing a Day-5 blast to arrest is killing a baby, why do they not have any issue with, or even debate over the actual IVF treatments where the stem-cells for this research are obtained ?

To me, there is no logic, it's just politics, plain and simple. The radicals pushing for the "ban" don't really respect life so much, they do respect power and influence and seem to want to use it to force themselves on others.


p.s. If you have questions or want more facts on IVF, please feel free to ask me and I'll try to point you to some answers.

Re:Where is the logic in the argument ?

[Dave21212]

(No need to post AC, we're all friends here on /.)

Wow... you must read a lot of SciFi books... "Will we have a new underclass of 'breeders', who get pregnant as often as possible to sell thier 'surpluss tissue'?"

That's not how it works... you just need a few lines, not a continuous supply. Let's try to stick with the facts here.

You suggest that IVF is OK since "People pay for IVF" - I suppose that following that logic, if I hire a hitman it's ok since I paid him/her to kill someone ? I still think IVF is a great procedure (around since the 80's) that gives hope to couples where preaching at them only gives them headaches ;) I'm just pointing out your flaws.

You say, and I agree that "most of these religious folks believe that to stand by while evil is being commited, makes them a party to the evil act" Of course, where do they stand on the US killing 100,000+ innocent civilians in Iraq ? I guess that's acceptable because George says it's neccessary (even though he lied to get us in there). Where are the folks who value life so much when we talk about the war ? They are lining up to support the killing... some respect, eh ?

Now I know why you post AC, the radical religious right regime fears the light of day !

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[TeckWrek]

Well... your bias towards the issue is sub-consciously evident by use of the phrase "not matter how you help the natives or what you do for them, they will hate you for being their master."

problem solved for new lines

[peter303]

In 2005 the time of Bush's announcement, mouse cell substrates was the most reliable method of growing stem cells. New non-mouse methods are now known.

I dont think any serious researcher is using the ancient methods any more. They've moved to localites that fund stem cell research.

Many? Most?

[Luke-Jr]

Correction: *All* of the great stem cell achievements have been from non-fetal stem cells.

Re:Many? Most?

[Luke-Jr]

Either way, the end (creating a cure) does not justify the means (murder).

Re:Republican Response

[ScentCone]

Actually, I can't stand the religious right. I'm annoyed that Bush needs to pander to them at all, and only less so that his policy on putting tax dollars into fetal stem cell research is personally formed by his religious convictions, which could use some lightening up.

I vote my conscience, and got to choose between the lesser of two people that wouldn't have been my choices either way. But I typically lean away from the muddle-headed, do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do leftier-side of the Democratic party because their particular form or irrational behavior tends to manifest itself as economy-squashing taxes and regulatory policies that suck the life out of our productivity. That productivity is what buys us the economic largesse to do things like basic research, and to reward those companies that take those chances with their money.

So, I'm typically more of a Republican, and I do think it's worth the time to address people who, like you, best surmise their opinion of me as:

"Good! Now all the unholy poor will die faster!"

Hooo-eeee! You certainly are showing your intellectual prowess with that one. Wow, another bright, left-field light shining into the dark cave of conservatism, yesiree-bob.

How will Bush explain this..?

[twoes00]

Heh, I look forward to hearing what President Bush has to say about this... Anyways, this is just another foolish roadblock. Stem cells have the potential to revolutionize human existence, as to why we are letting politics interfere with it, I'm not too sure. We choose to kill innocent people everyday by waging war, I don't see why harvesting stem cells is such a crime, after all, its being used to discover potential treatments. Stem cells could be used to treat ill massive amounts of people, why let them die is the true question.

Re:How will Bush explain this..?

[twoes00]

EDIT: "massive amounts of diseased people" heh, need rest...

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[Curunir_wolf]

I think a better term is "murdered children".

Well, that's just inflamatory, and not helpful to a rational debate. The debate stems from a real moral delemma, it's not as clear-cut as both sides try to make out.

I think everyone agrees that abortion is regrettable, and should be avoided whenever possible. The problem is trying to get government and law enforcement involved in those decisions, because they have to choose sides: do you sanction murder, or slavery? Because you have to allow one or the other. Since a fetus cannot survive outside the mother's womb, outlawing abortion is a 9-month to 18 year sentence of indentured servitude on the pregnant woman.

And there are all kinds of ancillary consequences to the mother for carrying child. Aside from the emotional difficulty of trying to give up a child that the woman is poorly suited for caring for, they have now been subjected to multiple social issues that will inalterably change the course of their lives. High school girls that become pregnant are often not allowed to continue in the mainstream curriculum. Many women will lose their jobs. There are many health issues and possible complications associated with pregnancy, as well as the expectation for the mother to maintain a lifestyle that does not jeopardize the health of the child.

And what about the "unborn", "potential" child? The one that will be killed if the mother decides not to be a mother? We all hope for life. We hope for a better outcome for the mother and the child, and pregnant women these days can get lots of support from many avenues. We hope they will take advantage of them and make the right decisions for themselves and the child.

Still, sometimes a pregnant woman must decide to end a pregnancy. The government should not be involved in this decision, for the reasons stated above. People sometimes seem to forget that there are things in this world worse than death, and even though we love someone, we have to let them go rather than prolong their suffering.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[tgibbs]

How about here?

Whether or not a little network of nerve cells that can fly a plane can reasonably be considered to be conscious (and I think that the universal answer among neuroscientists would be "no"), these cultures at least have one crucial feature--there are actual neurons present, which are certainly necessary, albeit not sufficient, for consciousness.

But at the early stage at which stem cells are harvested, the embryo doesn't have any neurons.

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[jadavis]

You're absolutely right, the situation is complex and there is no good answer.

Maybe we should get the federal government out of it and leave it up to the states.

After all, the Roe v. Wade decision was made by 9 people and effectively made law for the entire nation. I don't see any constitutional basis for denying the states the ability to legislate the issue. Perhaps some people feel as though abortion is a civil liberty, but it's not in the Constitution, so those people need an Amendment first.

That would be great

[porkchop_d_clown]

if it was actually true, and didn't cause brain tumors instead of curing the disease.

The truth of the matter is that claims of disease cures from embryonic stem cells are as wildly overblown as every other medical fad. It is in the researcher's vested interests to promise the sky and I, for one, have no intention of compromising my morals for a bag full of promises.

Re:That would be great

[Synbiosis]

The truth of the matter is that claims of disease cures from embryonic stem cells are as wildly overblown as every other medical fad.
Wrong.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[tgibbs]

Excuse me. Isn't an abortion the destruction of an embryo or fetus?

No, abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. When cells are merely dividing in a dish, nobody is pregnant.

Great present to my descendants

[sowdog81]

Going to give them an intelligent dog by knocking that.... sugar thing.

More FUD.

[porkchop_d_clown]

Check the FAQ.

Using private money to do embryonic stemcell work does not affect your other research in any way.

Re:Sort of off topic, but (Who modded parent info

[hshana]

Ok, I've read all of the back and forth up to this point, but this parent post has to cross some line. BTW, they were internment camps set up to isolate Japanese-Americans from the general population. Concentration camps were where the Nazis sent Jews and others they deemed undesirable to work as slaves and die. There's a big enough difference there.

Immoral?

[artifex2004]

The push for embrionic stem cell research is just plain immoral.

Those cells can be, and are, harvested from embryos that are otherwise discarded by fertility clinics. Do you really think scientists are going to order up a bunch of embryos and surgically remove eggs from human donors, in expensive and potentially dangerous procedures, while all these free embryos get trashed?

You're saying you'd rather those embryos just go to waste.

As long as we have fertility treatments that create surplus embryos, you can't take the moral high road on this. Those embryos are going to be destroyed, regardless. Might as well put them to some use. If you think embryos are lives, you're going after the wrong people. Go after the fertility clinics. In the meantime, let's lessen the waste and possibly save some lives.

Re:Immoral?

[gillbates]

So what happens when a cure is discovered, and the discarded embryos from fertility clinics can no longer meet the demand? Then even embryos which would have otherwise become people will be "harvested". You can't discover a cure with embryonic stem cells without the attendant reality that such a cure will create pressure to destroy potential lives.

Re:Immoral?

[Dave21212]

You obviously don't know how it works... they culture lines of stem cells, they don't use them directly. They replenish themselves and don't require lots of new material. There will never be a 'demand' for more, at least not a demand that even comes close to outpacing the avaliable eggs. By the way, they ALL go to waste now, thousands per month or more.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[TGK]

But things are more complicated than that. It is logical falacy to treat something as what it may someday become as opposed to what it actualy is.

Until birth, a child is really just a clump of cells growing in a host body. It is not, in that respect, terribly unlike a tumor.

I'm not saying this is the case, just that it is an equaly vlaid way of looking at an embryo.

In reality, without any real way to make a distinctions about where life beings, we are forced into a matter of faith. Is a fetus a human being? Ethicaly, religiously, moraly, that's up to the indivudal. Legaly, no, a fetus is not a human being. To paraphrase:

The census doesn't count them
When there is a miscarriage we don't have a funeral.
We can't get health insurance for them.
We can't get social security information for them.
We can't get tax exemption for them.
We can't get a passport for them.

From the point of view of the State, a fetus is not recognised as a human being in ANY RESPECT save in this one obscure corner of medical regulation. As it would happen, this is the only area in which such recognition has any possibility of negitive effect on the electorate.

For this reason, if for no other, the stem cell research regulations are a bad idea. If Bush seeks to extend legal recognition to the fetus, he should do so elsewhere... not in the medical community.

Warning: Democrats read this slowly

[HarveyBirdman]

I'll type slowly so you can keep up.

[1] I said Democrats invariably overspend. To an intellectually sound mind, this does not imply the opposite. I did NOT say the Republicans never overspend. I did not mention the Republicans at all. This strawman was a product of your own ideologically fogged mind. That being said, Democrats, when unrestrained, will invariably overspend. Their brutal anal rape of the California budget is on the level of the criminal, and makes the federal GOPers look like amateurs.

[2] Re: abortions. Aw, did I tread on your little plastic moralities? Boo hoo, pussy. Suck me, swallow, cook me a steak and then die. But I tease.

And, yes, there are some women in this world who should have forced abortions so the rest of us don't have to pay for their little bratty living arguments for putting birth control into the water systems of the planet. Abortions are cheaper than jail terms for the little ones that grow up to be serial thugs. Hell, I'd make abortion leagl through the fifty-seventh trimester. ;-)

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Seoulstriker]

Humans embryonic stem cells are being researched at the same time as animal embryonic stem cells. I'm trying to emphasize that embryonic stem cells are currently being researched in humans and in animals at the same time. Animal research should take priority over animal testing. Human testing should almost never go first because of ethical and financial implications.

Mod parent redundant!

[shaitand]

At least 5 others had posted this before this comment. 4 of those should have been modded redundant as well.

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[Hatta]

I know full well I could be an aborted fetus, but I'm not, thus I'm firmly pro-life.

I know full well I could have been encrusted on a tissue and thrown away, but I'm not, thus I'm firmly anti-masturbation.

While I'm at it:

"Abortions for all!"
BOO!
"Well, abortions for none!"
BOO!
"Abortions for some! Miniature american flags for other!"
YAY!

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Valar]

IIRC, there are also some stem cells in umbilical cords which might be useful for research.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[TGK]

Let is never be said the Religious Right is incapable of hypocrisy. Had I not commented on this story I'd be modding this post up right now.

This is EXACTLY the problem with the Conservative Christian views on reality. To paraphrase George Carlin "They'll do anything to save a fetus, but if it grows up to be a doctor they just might have to kill it."

Either you're ok with the concept of the sacrifice of the few to benefit the many or you're not. Either you're ok with the concept of man's ability to judge his fellow man or you're not.

I don't think it's ok to sacrifice the few to save the many. I don't think that our campaign in Iraq and the hundreds of thousands we've killed there are an acceptable price to pay to foist democracy on a country that may not be ready for it yet.

I also don't think a fetus is alive, so I'm not really in any sort of logical contradiction when I say I'm all for stem cell research. That's sacrificing medical waste to benefit the many, no problem there.

I think that man can judge his fellow man. That's why I'm all for the death penalty in certain specific cases.

At the same time, to argue that you don't want to kill a fetus because it's an innocent child but you do want to kill a child molester because he's a vicious criminal is hypocritical if you ascribe to Christianity. All sin, even child molestation, is equal in the eyes of God. It is not man's place, but God's to judge, and to classify a human embryo as more or less worthy of human mercy than that child molester is a sin of pride of the highest degree.

Moreover the equally absurd argument that abortion somehow risks the disruption of God's plan is arrogance beyond words. To assume that man can somehow act in a way that would confound the all powerful and all knowing mind of the Most High? How can you believe this and still claim to be a Christian?

[To the parent, I'm not ranting against you, just in general.]

Double standards? Damn skippy. I haven't seen anything from the Right Wing in the last 10 years that hasn't smacked of hypocrisy.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Hatta]

That doesn't make any sense. There would be no need to conceive only to abort. There are plenty enough abortions occurring to supply plenty of stem cells for research. It's a bogus argument that's used to shield a religious motive.

It has already been stated innumerable times in this thread, but I guess it needs repeating. Stem cells come from in vitro fertilization, not abortions! The American propaganda system is truely amazing. Even those against the ban spout mistruths.

BTW, I don't see any reason why fertilization for research only is a problem at all.

Re:Don't even bother to read this crap...

[Hatta]

Soooo, from you anology, I take it that these stem cells are extracted using some "embryo press"?

And as a byproduct we get baby oil.

Controdictions.

[Penguinoflight]

Your post starts on the right leg, but your train of logic seems to derail before the destination (conclusion.)

While many germans knew the holocost was wrong, (some even went against the nazi's to their own hurt) most did nothing. The germans who did nothing, can be compared to you doing nothing to protect the unborn. Justifying the death of child is equally trivial to justifying death of another race.

Children dying in Iraq is another matter altogether. To me it's caused by a lack of morals in the people who lived there. Most people heard of children dying, but did not hear the cause. The islam/materialist men who were fighting for saddam did not protect their families, they did the opposite and used them as human shields, while attempting to kill americans.

You might question my morals, but I'd kill all of them... only in the cause of freeing them from such evil.

Re:Controdictions.

[getch();]

You'd kill all of them?! I admit, the "them" you refer to is ambiguous. But you also said that, by killing them all, you will free them from evil. Care to explain this further or should I assume that you're sociopathic? I'm pretty sure Jesus refrains from advocating "killing all of them" in the version of the Bible sitting on my shelf.

Re:Controdictions.

[ozric99]

You might question my morals, but I'd kill all of them... only in the cause of freeing them from such evil.

You sir, are a buffoon.

Re:Controdictions.

[DrSlinky]

You might question my morals, but I'd kill all of them... only in the cause of freeing them from such evil. ...and in the act, showing who is truly evil. Stoop to so low a level, and you're no better than the "bad guys" you're trying to eliminate.

Re:Sort of off topic, but (Who modded parent info

[Ohreally_factor]

Not only are you quibbling over semantics, you are also in error. Go look up the definition of "concentration", then apply it to the idea of rounding people of a certain type up into a camp. Then you'll understand why it's called a concentration camp. See? It's not because a concentration camp is somewhere you go to think really deep thoughts.

If you wish to minimize the situation by calling it an internment camp, go right ahead. I know people go to all sorts of lengths to feel better about America, including watching Fox News. If it makes you feel better to say "We weren't as bad as the Nazis", instead of recognizing a terrible mistake or trying to sugar coat the mistake, go right ahead. It's not my job to stop you from being an idiot.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[computer_chacham]

Well, I guess the point is that previous administrations did not have to grapple with the same ethical concerns, so you can't paint Bush as some uniquely anti-scientific Neanderthal.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[cnettel]

Embryonic and fetal development is quite interesting as it's both very similar between species at one level, but there are clear differences. For example, the placental interface to the mother is very different between different mammals so you can't just say that the whole process is conserved. This leads to the conclusion that actual research on human cells is a more direct way.

For the sake of it, are you also saying that HeLa cell cultures shouldn't be used before extensive animal tests? For research, human non-tumorous cells would often provide a better model than common labaratory animals -- and be far cheaper if the culturing methods were properly developed.

Beggers can't be choosers.

[HomerJayS]

Institutions that have their hands out begging for money shoudn't whine and complain when there are conditions placed on how those funds can/should be used.

What is so hard to understand about that?

If you are feeding from the public funds trough, you can expect your snout to be smacked from time to time.

Re:Beggers can't be choosers.

[Hrodvitnir]

You're right! When politicians and lawmakers start using religious morals to govern what can and cannot be scientifically researched, the best way to stand up for what you believe in is to keep your big trap shut!

Duh

[delmoi]

Intresting paragraph from an intresting article (the last link).

I have noticed that members of the Discovery Institute, the headquarters for lobbying for Intelligent Design, are also speaking out against embryonic stem cell research. It will be interesting to see if they try to embrace Gage and Varki's research while still trying to cast doubt on evolution. How on Earth, I wonder, could someone promoting Intellgent Design or Young Earth creationism make sense of these scientific results?

It actualy wouldn't be hard, they'd simply say that humans didn't have this sugar because they were god's chosen mammal, or something like that.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[magefile]

No, Clinton was the first president to do so.

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[slavetrade55]

so you are saying that a human is a parasite that needs to be eradicated when it is inconvienent to someone?

Actually I'd say it is exactly a parasite (by the definition of parasite), and that it is only a potential human until the cord is cut. But you won't care, I know. Maybe we just have a different idea of what common sense.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[shaitand]

I'm not even talking about miscarriages. I'm talking about menstration. Simply because the egg is fertilized doesn't mean menstration never happens. Most fertilized eggs land on a tampon. And yes, the body does intend to expel them (which you call killing).

Even with miscarriages if we follow your definition we should be charging women with 2nd degree murder.

"And this is about human life - trying to equate human life with any plant or animal life is utterly ridiculous."

And your basis for this claim is? Let me guess, it is either "it just is, if you can't see that your blind" or "I believe in a special magic part of me that makes me unique and magical called a soul". Please, shock me, come up with something that is backed by fact or evidence that humans are something more than ONE of the more intelligent creatures on the planet who also happen to be manually capable.

"And last time I mowed, the grass stayed alive and grew back..."

Did the part you cut off survive? And are you confident each blade survived? What about the last time you swatted a fly, did it live? Ever wash your hands with anti-bacterial soap?

I bet the part of the grass you cut off didn't make it, instead it broke down and helped the rest of the grass (or any other nearby plants) survive and live longer and healthier. The part of the mother they cut off when they perform an abortion does the same.

"At conception, a new living organism is created that has a DNA sequence different from either parent"

So does every sperm and every egg. Really we should outlaw premature ejaculation, masterbation, and menstration. Technically eggs and sperm are living human organisms you know.

"Sorry - all of your points are invalid (like the rest of liberalism and secular humanism is...)."

Welcome to the real world. And please, if you respond at least attempt to up with at least one example of valid logic or something more substantial than "nuh uh".

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Unless of Course - the state wants to have an interest. Ask Scott Peterson - He got nailed for murdering the fetus too. The state will absolutely assign rights to the fetus - but only in the states interest, and not the fetus.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[SilverspurG]

It WAS brought up when Bush made his executive order

Forget the political perspective. Why did the scientists use cultures which would introduce Neu5Gc if it was going to render their entire stem cell inventory useless? They wouldn't. Someone's making a crater out of a divet for political purposes.

Re:Pro-lie idiocy on exhibit (parent)

[SilverspurG]

you are well and truly an idiot

Here's a prescription for Viagra. It'll be more effective than attempting to troll /. as AC.

But why would that stop private funding?

[SuperKendall]

It seems to me that if enough potential profit is involved, private companies would still be lining up to provide financial backing for research despite some protests.

And even in other countries it seems mostly like governments investing (not sure about that, would love to hear if I'm wrong).

Re:Haha

[AK Marc]

Only on Slashdot is it a troll to ask someone to cite their sources.

Well, for one, I thought it was common knowledge. I don't cite my sources when I say, "The sky is blue." For another, you didn't ask anyone for anything. You demanded that I prove it. With the manner in which you posted, I can easily see how your demand could be taken as a factless rebuttal, and thus be a troll. It certainly doesn't help that you post AC.

But I'm sure that you will just pass it off as a Liberal Conspiracy (tm) to hide the truth, and not be related at all to you or the manner you posted. (that sentence should be modded troll) But I like how everything becomes a liberal/conservative fight. I know people in the research field. They received federal funds to experiment on stem cells before W took office. It isn't about party. It is about the truth.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Ed_1024]

Yeah, ironic isn't it: the guy who most needs some stem cells in his brain pulls the plug on the research...

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Well... your bias towards the issue is sub-consciously evident by use of the phrase "not matter how you help the natives or what you do for them, they will hate you for being their master."

You're confusing the bias inherent in the phrase with my own.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Kehvarl]

Because if you believe that life begins at conception, then the fertilized eggs are in fact children, and precious lifeforms.

In the specific case given (left overs from fertility clinics), the embryos in question are scheduled to be destroyed as medical waste. Using them for stem cell research is worse than this how? Or are you saying that every potentially viable embryo that a fertility clinic produces should have every attempt made to be brought to full term and born even if that means many tens of children (most likely unwanted, I can't imagine even parents who are having problems conceiving desiring to suddenly add 10 or more members to their family).

Not to say Stem Cell research is moral or immoral, I'm merely pointing out that the embryos mentioned in the specific example given are already going to be incinerated. Which would you prefer?

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[gnuLNX]

"What I find most ridiculous is that the same group of people who said that a black man is less than a white man and that kidnapping and enslaving africans was the "white man's burden" are the same group who pretend that they are the worlds single moral authority, and claim that as the basis for everything they are for."

What I find ridiculous is that you actually believe that the people who did the enslaving are alive and determining what the moral of the world are.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[GlassHeart]

Bush opponents regularly blow this totally out of proportion [...] the executive order in question is reprehensible [...] tenuous, illogical, religious [...]

Wow... exactly what are the "Bush opponents" saying so far beyond your "reprehensible, tenuous, illogical, and religious" that blow the issue so out of proportion?

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[sugar and acid]

What do you mean by unstable? And unstable in vivo, or in vitro? Embryonic stem cells are quite stable in culture and thus are reasonable easy to culture, and many techniques already exist from IVF (which pretty much means they are stable in vitro).

Immune rejection in vivo will be the usual cause of any "unstable" stem cells, and is a problem for both umbilical and embryonic stem cells as the animal/human and the cell line are usually not genetically identical.

Re:Sigh

[RebelWebmaster]

While I'm sure you're just trying to be a troll, you might be interested to know that last time I checked, Bill O'Reilly is actually in favor of stem cell research.

No

[Concern]

The HLA is not as simple as blood type, but it is not like the donor has to be a monozygotic twin of the recipient.

To have stem cell-based therapy you need to bank common HLA types.

The neoconservatives won't pay for it unless making Christian septuplets is somehow involved. "Use the existing '60' lines," they say. So, federal funding blackout on anything likely to be useful in the field. Ever wonder why the Bush compromise was inadequate? This is one big reason.

What we just found out is that, even if you are HLA-compatible with one of the Bush-sanctioned lines, you probably can't use them anyway. That's big news, IMHO.

I quote:

Complicating matters is that common combinations of versions of HLA proteins vary considerably within ethnic or racial groups, and quite dramatically between racial groups. No information is available on the federally approved cell lines' particular combinations of HLA proteins, but the lines' small number and their derivation from embryos created for reproductive use indicate their HLA diversity is likely to be woefully inadequate.

Instead, researchers will need access to a group of human ES cell lines that match as many people as possible. Because there would be limited resources for establishing such a "bank" of ES cell lines and because of concerns for early human life, the panel carefully considered how to optimize Americans' "biological access" to future therapies with these cells. ...

African-Americans have a greater variety of HLA profiles, so more cell lines would be needed in the bank to potentially match the same percentage of that population as, say, white Americans. According to the panel's calculations, 40 cell lines representing the most common HLA varieties of white Americans would be expected to match about 71 percent of that population. By contrast, 40 cell lines matching the 40 most common HLA types of African-Americans would cover just over 45 percent of that group. Regardless of what percentage of the population is covered, however, new cell lines would have to be established, the panel said.

"No matter how we look at it, the federally approved cell lines are inadequate," says Gearhart. "We can do a lot of work with them, but we can't move into clinical trials or offer therapies with them."

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/20 03 /11_10_03.html

Neu5Gc and Intelligent Design

[iabervon]

It is remarkable to note that having Neu5Ac and lacking Neu5Gc is one of very few ways in which humans are unique. I suspect that the Intelligent Design folks would embrace the finding that humanity is different from animals in a very specific and unique way while rejecting the idea that it was a random mutation that caused this difference. If there were a creator who noticed that the creations thus far were kind of boring due to having Neu5Gc in their brains, the obvious thing for the creator to try would be to stick some handy disrupting chunk of DNA in the middle of CMAH. I mean, that's what Varki is doing in mice, most likely, and we assume that he's intelligent.

(Personally, I find the position of the scientific community a bit contradictory. We contrast evolution with intelligent design, but then consider genetic algorithms a branch of AI and award doctorates to people who mutate animals in interesting ways. Clearly evolution isn't going to pass the Turing test any time soon, but it seems to be about tied with drug companies for cleverness currently.)

Re:Sigh

[TGK]

As someone asked me in a previous post on this same thread "prove it." I'd never be so crass as to phrase it that way, so I'll paraphrase instead.

Can you provide documentation to back that assertion?

Keep in mind we're talking about new embryonic stem cell lines. We're not talking about existing embryonic lines, ubmilical or placentil lines, or adult lines.

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[brouski]

I'm sorry, did you just advocate that someone get put on trial for each and every abortion?

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[RailGunner]

So does every sperm and every egg. Really we should outlaw premature ejaculation, masterbation, and menstration. Technically eggs and sperm are living human organisms you know.

Bzzzzzzt. Sperm and Eggs cells have only 1/2 of a human DNA sequence.

Also, Sperm and Egg cells do not divide - a fertilized egg, on the other hand, does.

Mmmmmm sugars

[StikyPad]

Carl Zimmer has a fascinating description of the sugars we humans lack that contaminated the stem cell lines.

I don't know about Carl, but I'm sure lacking some donut sugars right about now. Mmmmmm donuts.

Re:Sigh

[Valegor]

Clinton said that he was going to fund them. He made a big press deal out of it, but he never followed through.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[rhombic]

Yes, sigh, here we go again.

If a person engages in an illegal behavior that is not intended to, but does result in the death of another, then that person is guilty of manslaughter, right?

So, if a woman, who does not know she was pregnant, goes on a drug binge and OD's, triggering a miscarriage, she would be guilty of manslaughter, right?

For that matter, if a woman was pregnant, and knowingly changed her diet to one that was completely deficient in folic acid, as well as several other vitamins, it is very likely that she would spontaneously abort (would be challenging, but not impossible). By your definition she would be guilty of murder. It would be premeditated. The amusing thing about your position is that in many states, this premeditated "murder" would make the woman eligible for murder (excuse me, capital punishment to republicans).

Sorry, your points are also invalid (like the rest of the neoconservatives that will do anything it can to prevent an American woman from having an abortion but is more than happy to start wars in the third world, resulting in thousands of innocent civilian deaths).

Re:Sort of off topic, but (Who modded parent info

[NeoSkandranon]

Considering we didnt' systematically exterminate japanese-americans in those camps I fail to see exactly how calling them something other than "concentration camps" is minimizing the situation.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[DukeToma]

Until birth, a child is really just a clump of cells growing in a host body. It is not, in that respect, terribly unlike a tumor.

You've obviously never had a living human child developing inside you before.

I'd like to point out by the way that all you are "is really a clump of cells growing", but I do not use that as an excuse to dismember you callously without regard to your well being.

Re:Sigh

[RebelWebmaster]

After about 15 minutes on Google, this is about the best quote I've found:

For example: Bill O'Reilly, host of Fox News Cable channel program, The O'Reilly Factor, three times between July, 2001 and March, 2002, stated on his program: "No one knows when human life begins". (Source)

Beyond that, I can only say that I recall him saying it on his show.

props to Slashdot for not fugging it up

[thelizman]

Probably mere happenstance, since it wasn't michael posting, but this is the first time the 'media' has mention that the "ban" on stem cell research is really just a ban on government funding of stem cell research. Damn, any schmuck can pick up his wifes afterbirth and create cures for cancer in his basement lab.

Re:Sort of off topic, but (Who modded parent info

[Ohreally_factor]

Congratulations, slashbot. You failed to read the post you to which you are responding.

I fail to see exactly how calling them something other than "concentration camps" is minimizing the situation

Euphemism. If you need to mince words to to prop up your insecurities, fine. Just don't ask me to sacrifice meanings so you won't feel uncomfortable.

And if your argument is "We weren't as bad as the Nazis", then don't expect me to take you seriously.

Re:Liberal Liars posting on /. ? Can't be?

[tindur]

The US must be one of the very few countries where it's considered bad being a liberal. I suppose the opposite, prejudiced, is a virtue.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[DukeToma]

Well, at the earliest stages of the embryo, the cells (stem cells) are not differentiated enough for you to tell which is a hair cell, or a liver cell, or an eye cell. That's the point...they are all cells with potential, but, are not live or a living human...just a grouping of cells that, if all goes well, have the potential to differentiate and become a human....

To expect to see brain cells or muscle cells in the earliest stages of the development of a human being would be anti-intellectual and downright ignorant. The brain cells are there along with all of the other cells that make up a human body. Only ignoramouses expect them to look like they would in a fully developed adult. The cells are present, they are alive, and they are developing at their own pace. All these cells need is all that any cells need. Food, water, oxygen, etc. The necessities for life. Whether the embryo develops in her mother's womb or some other woman's womb or in an artificial womb (if one were to be developed), the embryo will always develop into the same adult. The reason for this is that all that is necessary for an individual human life is present in the embryo and in fact is present in the single-celled zygote. This is a scientific fact.

Get out of the dark ages where people believed that a "blob of tissue" became "ensouled" at some point during development.

Re:Sigh

[TGK]

And while that establishes him as on the fence as to the morality of abortion, it does not indicates that he "favors" stem cell research.

"On the fence" is not the same thing as "in favor of." If it was, not one would give a crap about voting for the 87 Billion before voting against it.

Re:Sigh

[TGK]

Is there any documentation of this or is this just your personal recolection?

I've found numerous sources (cited in previous posts) discussing Clinton's pro-stem cell funding stance. Surely if he reniged on this promise you can find a newspaper article substantiating it. Idealy a newspaper article from a source not known for a conservitive bias.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[DukeToma]

There's no such thing as a "fertilized egg". What you are probably referring to are the pre-embryonic stages of development on the human being. Starting at the single-celled zygote and progressing through the blastocyst stage and so on. Again, these are merely stages in the development of a human being. Other stages are infant, toddler, adolescent, adult.

Why would it be ethical to dismember an innocent human being in one stage of development and not in another stage? Are you one of those non-scientific types that believes that there is some point that the human body becomes "ensouled"?

Trust Bush to stem the tide of science

[Snaller]

Next up: How the courts will determine if someone is a witch or not by testing if they float.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[DukeToma]

Yes, yes, yes. The whole point of an abortion, however, is to dismember a human being who is presently in an early stage of development such as blastocyst, embryo, or fetus. Technically dismembering a human being in these stages of development who is not in a womb would not be called an abortion.

Calling it murder would be accurate, however.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[withoutfeathers]

Stem cell research began in 1998 with the successful propogation of the first lines. That meant that Bill Clinton could have funded research in FY1999, FY2000 and FY2001. George Bush's first budget was FY2002 which commenced on October 1, 2001 and ended September 30, 2002.

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[rpiotrow]

What I find most ridiculous is that the same group of people who said that a black man is less than a white man and that kidnapping and enslaving africans was the "white man's burden" are the same group who pretend that they are the worlds single moral authority, and claim that as the basis for everything they are for. Infanticide has a longer history than civilization.

"Group of people"? What group would that be. I hope I am not in your definition of "that group". Should I be worried?

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[SenorChuck]

I think "Interesting" or "Informative" would have been a more appropriate moderation for this thread than "Insightful". There's nothing insightful about this.

I will say that I agree with the parent about the inconsistencies adopted by many who would label themselves as morally superior to the rest. That's pretension at its worst.

I however do not agree with the parent's stance on "potential" tripe. Is this to say that before a fetus has a developing brain that it has no chance of becoming a living being? That seems like an absurd argument to me. But then, I do not believe in murder in any of its forms - this includes death penalty. Instating the death penalty is an interesting way of being self-righteous. I'm sure most people on this earth have done something that merits more consequences than have been received, but those judgements were not dealt.

Hang on there Zealot

[Snaller]

Outlaw can mean:

"...to place under a ban or restriction"

It most certainly has had a restriction placed on it now.

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[scapermoya]

That is why there is a term called 'viability' that is used in deciding whether to abort or not. 3rd trimester abortions are the only ones where viability is up in the air, and those kinds of abortions are typically only done in cases where the mother's health is at risk, she doesn't really have a choice at that point. Hospitals focus on preserving the life of the mother more than the baby, especially in cases where the baby has a severe defect. The problem is, every pregnancy is different, so it is very hard to legislate 'when' the cutoff is. Lawmakers are scared to put in a "doctors discretion" clause because that leaves too much room. This is indeed a problem of how to legislate 3rd trimester abortions rather than a problem of should we have abortions at all. The problem with using "brain activity" as a cutoff is that what can be called brain activity occurs quite early in the pregnancy, before the fetus is viable in the least, and is most likely a totally involentary process. "Brain waves" are just coordinated electrical pulses, their presence doesn't mean the fetus is thinking, it just means the cells are functioning.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Snaller]

Which essentially means "I wont fund real science because the voices in my head tells me not to"

Of course now other countries will do the real work, and american companies will just buy the results in a few years.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[tgibbs]

Yes, yes, yes. The whole point of an abortion, however, is to dismember a human being who is presently in an early stage of development such as blastocyst, embryo, or fetus. Technically dismembering a human being in these stages of development who is not in a womb would not be called an abortion. Calling it murder would be accurate, however.

"Dismember" is a term obviously calculated to create a misleading impression of a person being ripped limb from limb, and to obscure the fact that such an early embryo is an undifferentiated ball of cells--it has no members to "dis."

Calling it "murder" is to exalt cells over mind. The term is normally "murder" used to refer to the snuffing out of a human consciousness. You cannot murder a body in which brain death has already occured, for example, even if all of the other organs are still alive. But like limbs, an early embryo has no consciousness--indeed, no brain to feel pain, nor nerves to feel it with. It is the human mind that is worth of protection. Yes, an early embryo (like a sperm and an egg) has some chance of eventually developing into something that has a brain and a mind, and can reasonably be called a person. But it doesn't have them yet.

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[scapermoya]

That's a mighty big leap you are making, from the Peculiar Institution to the attempted obliteration of an ethnic group that shared a religion, to abortion? Well, free speech is free speech, but you aren't helping the debate much. Regardless of your political opinion of the woman, I think that Hilary Clinton said it best, "Keep abortion safe, legal and rare." Nobody likes abortion, just like nobody likes other emotionally unsavory medical procedures. Unfortunately, what you deem to be 'proper' or 'religiously correct' should have no impact on the practices of a medical community that largely disagrees with you. I would sooner put my faith in a doctor when it comes to a medical decision (which abortion is) than a religious zealot screaming waving signs and screaming at women who are doing something that must be very emotionally taxing. But hey, what do I know, I'm a guy.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[LWATCDR]

If you look at this from the point of view of the pro lifers "The rest of the embryos are destroyed as medical waste. That's it. No abortions."
These are living embryos and they are being killed. How is this any different from an abortion?
Before I get my head jumped on I myself am not for the banning of abortion. I do not think it is a good thing but I can not see any just way to ban without making things worse than they are. I can see where the right to life people are coming from and from their point of view it this is the same thing.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Rei]

Do you realize how many embryos are discarded by fertility clinics each year? There are between 9,000 and 400,000 frozen embryos in the US available for use by other couples (just ignoring the ones that exist for couples that will probably never be used); only 2-3 dozen have ever been used. Almost all of these will inevitably be destroyed. Of course, many never even make it to the freezer.

It's your choice: trash, or stem cell research. I know which one I'd choose.

Heck, even in nature, the situation isn't all *that* different. Initially, scientists assumed that most pregnancies made it to term. However, as tests have become more and more sensitive, it is now clear that over half of all fertilized eggs are miscarried before the woman ever realizes she was pregnant.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Rei]

No, but they can.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[jmccay]

Since bone marrow is a form of stem cells (adult stem cells), then all of you are wrong. It can thus be said that stem cell reseach began in the 1950s and 1960s with with bone marrow transplants.

Thank you

[Concern]

You got it exactly right.

It's interesting to me that the "religious right" are deeply worried about an aborted fetus but hardly ever protest over IVF procedures.

It could lead one to believe in the Christian Baby theory; basically, that their policies on IVF, abortion, and birth control are actually consistent (and cynical): to produce more Christians, at any cost.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Catbeller]

"Because if you believe that life begins at conception, then the fertilized eggs are in fact children, and precious lifeforms."

Okay then. Take the zygote to the zoo, and watch the cell group laugh at the elephants. Feed it Gerbers. Change its little cellular diapers.

Won't do you any good, because a zygote is not a child; it is a fertilized egg. This is a fundamental point of what is really real, and what is fantasy. Chris Reeves was real. People dying and suffering by the millions that we could save are real. The cells are just cells.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Obfuscant]

If Bush is in favor of destroying existing resources (human tissues) instead of using them to advance science and save lives,...

Bush is not in favor of destroying human tissues. To claim that he is is simply "tenuous" and "illogical".

This is an ethical dillema along the same lines as whether medical data gathered by the Nazi doctors using Jewish "volunteers" should be used. To some, using the data legitimizes the collection method. To others, it's just data. To wave your hands and claim there is no ethical issue at all is simply "tenuous" and "illogical".

If this research is immoral, why only ban government funding, as opposed to all funding,...

Because the question of morality is an individual matter. Private funding comes from people who have decided that it is moral to do this. Tax funding comes from everyone, even those who are morally opposed to the activity. A ban on federal funding honors the feelings of those who oppose the research while also honoring the feelings for those who accept it. If you want to support such research, write a check. If you don't, you ought not have the feds take your money away from you for such purposes.

If you want to use war protestors as a counter example, then you need to be arguing that THEY should get the same consideration, not that nobody ought to get it. But you'll lose that argument, because public funding of the military is a task outlined in the Constitution for the US government; public funding of stem cell research is not.

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[SeanAhern]

Well, I think a mass of cells is a "child" when it's able to survive outside of it's womb--ie with no direct support from the body that grew it..

Okay.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[HiThere]

Of course. Banning research on animal cells might impact the agricultural corporations.

Sorry if I'm cynical, but I don't accept anything that Bush does as being done for honest reasons. Each individual case must be proved separately. (Generally I find this results in a more accurate initial judgement.)

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[HiThere]

And at the time that he said that it was already known that those cell lines had been contaminated with animal fluids that were used to raise them.

If he didn't know that, it was only because of intentional ignorance, and thus cannot be used as an excuse. That is one time among many when he intentionally lied to the american public. He lies so often, that I generally find it better to presume that anything he says is a lie than to believe it. (Sometimes other evidence proves that occasionally he has told the truth.)

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[DukeToma]

While an embryo's brain has not formed to the point where synapses are firing and "consciousness" has been achieved you still cannot ethically snuff out his/her life.

For example, if we had a patient who was "brain dead" yet we knew that in a few months her brain would become conscious and walk out of the hospital, and I were to tear the unconscious body apart, society would have every right to throw my butt in jail. This is closer to the scenario we have in human beings who have not yet developed far enough to become conscious.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Grishnakh]

(like the rest of the neoconservatives that will do anything it can to prevent an American woman from having an abortion but is more than happy to start wars in the third world, resulting in thousands of innocent civilian deaths)

This position is not inconsistent or hypocritical, actually. Those thousands of innocent civilians aren't Christians, so their lives don't matter. Whereas fetuses that are aborted in the USA are potential Christians.

I fine it really depressing that my homeland is turning into a theocratic backwater before I'm even middle-aged.

Errr...

[porkchop_d_clown]

Glad to see you can tell the difference between embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells and placental blood.

Glad to hear that educated people like you control the future of our species.

Re:Errr...

[Synbiosis]

Yep, that was definitely a mistake on my part.

Glad to hear that educated people like you control the future of our species.

The problem with embryonic stem cells is that nobody wants to touch them because of the ethical concerns.

When South Korean researchers cloned humans using embryonic stem cells, there was a (relatively) huge uproar from the US. Imagine what it'd be like if that had been done in America.

If you actually look into the field, the US is literally *years* behind because it's much easier to work with embryonic stem cells than it is with other types. And as for the original comment I replied to, stem cell technology is fairly new.

It's just as complicated as the drug development, and the average amount of time it takes for a drug to be developed and tested runs to about 17 years. Expecting no federal funds to be granted to research and seeing a cure within six years is just foolish.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[jcenters]

And for the record, yes, I am against IVF for this very reason. Until the process is perfected and not this "hit or miss" stuff that goes on now, it's not ready for primetime.

Then why does everyone target embryonic stem cell use and not IVF? From your viewpoint, you're attacking the symptom, not the problem.

I, in the meantime, would rather see what would otherwise be medical waste put to good use.

This debate seems rather senseless.

Re:logic ? cost time analysis

[perrin5]

The statement he made was that it would be EASIER to harvest new stem cells and grow them in serum which does not contain Neu5Gc.

BTW, if you can figure out how to make SERUM not derived from an animal, let me know, would ya?

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Martin Blank]

I find it interesting how people here constantly think I'm a Republican when I'm not.

What I am is concerned about the California budget, which as of June 1, 2004, had $40 billion in existing bond debt, plus another $30 billion authorized but not issued because the projects they're for haven't reached specific phases, plus $15B in bonds approved by voters one last time to bail out the state, plus the $3B for the stem cell research -- $88 billion in bond debt in place or authorized, payable over the next 30 years, with as much as about $9B going to paying back bond debt in a single year. The state is bond-happy, and has been for years, because we don't have to pay it off until some time that is not now.

Going into this round of budget talks, we have a budget shortfall of $8B, out of a total spending package of more than $100B. The Legislature has served notice that it's not happy with the governor's submitted budget, and plans to fight it with their own version of things, and it's going to get nasty, because there can be no more borrowing to cover the deficit, and there's less than $4B left in last year's $15B authorization to cover the gap. Something is going to have to give, and it will not at all surprise me to see July 1 come rolling around without a budget again.

Note that I support embryonic stem cell research, but I also support not pushing the state's finances any more than they already are. Trim some of the other programs out of the way and make room for the money first, then spend it.

Why do I have to pay for funding the research?

[Software Doc]

I don't have anyone reaching into my pocket to fund most things that are researched.

Why should I want the government to take my money in the form of taxes and spend it on something that has not been proven and is still on in the research stage?

If I want to pay for the research, I can donate to any of the organizations who are performing the research.

This will continue

[tjlsmith]

until some bigshot gets Parkinson's Disease. Then, a miracle will take place and stem cell research will be placed on the front burner.

If...

[flibuste]

If only that was just the stem cells that were contaminated in US bodies...Unfortunately, contamination seems to spread to brain cells before that.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[BillyBlaze]

This is somewhat offtopic, but I don't believe nerve cells are necessary for conciousness. (I'm refering here to weak AI, though, and I agree that nerve cells are necessary for conciousness in current humans.)

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[DrSlinky]

What I find ridiculous is that you actually believe that the people who did the enslaving are alive and determining what the moral of the world are.
Many of those who did fight against civil rights are still alive. Many persons who believe that a black man has no right to use the same water fountain as a white man are still alive and voting. Hell, the GOP has at least one senator currently in office who publicly opposed the idea of equality between blacks and whites.

Re:Um, yeah. China is curing brain damage now.

[NexusJedi]

When Jianhong Zhu treated a patient with a chopstick lodged in his brain, not an uncommon injury in the country, the culinary implement ultimately helped repair the damage it had caused.

I didn't realize that getting chopsticks lodged in one's brain was such a common thing in China.

MOD PARENT UP

[quetzalc0atl]

Dave, you hit the nail right on the head.

In addition, in order to be logically consistent, an anti-ES person must be against women's birth control hormones. Why? Because typically the contraceptive hormones do NOT prevent conception, they merely make the uterine wall lining a less hospitable place for a zygote to develop. So then the next time the woman goes to the bathrooom...wooosh, down the toilet goes the "person".

So where are the protestors and waving their stupid signs? Exactly.

Unfortunately, the media presents the issue as if little babies were being killed for their cells...infact, a cluster of 32 cells that have not differentiated into any of the embryonic germ layers hardly constitute an organism at all, let alone what we consider a "person".

and just for the record...I happen to be AGAINST abortion, which I logically reason IS infact murder. Harvesting ES cells, by contrast, is not.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Dave21212]

Thanks. That's a good point about 'The Pill' there as well.

I'm pretty sure this issue is a red herring of some sort - the radicals are being driven to protest embryonic stem-cell research perhaps to preserve the profits of the private sector development, or more likely because it makes folks feel like they are 'doing something good' while keeping them too busy to protest other politically sensitive issues like the loss of civilian life in Iraq, etc...

Who can guess at the motives ? So far, when I engage people in discussion of the topic it inevitably degrades into 'save the babies from research' and everything else is 'just different' but they can't express why... sad really.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Thing 1]

I love your posts but have to call you on this one. You sound a lot like my sister after the first three episodes of The Simple Life (Denise Ritchie and Paris Hilton's show): she was convinced it was actual reality filming, and that Paris and Denise were incompetent boobs.

It served their interests for her to think that. ("I'm better than them" is a good hook; and it kept her watching their ads.)

It serves Bush's interests for you to think that he's an idiot. I, too, believe that he looks like an idiot. I do not for an instant believe the lie, though. He's building an empire[1] and is very good at social engineering.

[1] -- another article discussed military robots, and someone posted saying that if we have warfare in which the two sides are unbalanced wrt robots, especially if one side is all robots and the other side is all meat, then it's going to look very bad to everyone involved when the robots keep mowing down the meat. Countries which use robots in battle, the poster continued, should be seen as empire-building because you should be willing to lay down your life for democracy. Which shows just how corrupt Bush's new war is; he's unwilling to lay down the lives of his daughters.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[spamsk8r]

The "religious right," as everyone has called them, have done a terrible job of showing what Christianity is all about. I, for one, do not believe that the war in Iraq is just or good, because it would be inconsistent with my other beliefs. While many "Christians" may engage in this doublethink, do not fool yourself into believing that these people are representative of true Christianity. And no, I'm not a neocon, nor do I affiliate myself with the "right," on many issues. I believe that if Jesus were to comment on the things that these people spout He would be very disappointed.

I did not say what you think I said

[fizbin]

Now that was a non-sequitor. Tell me, where in my post did I ever take an explicit or implicit position that it was ethical "to dismember an innocent human being in one stage of development and not in another stage"?

My objection was to terminology: an abortion is the interruption of a pregnancy, and no pregnancy has occurred. Yes, the destruction of zygotes produced as part of IVF should be the moral equivalent of abortion, if moral attitudes were determined by logical argument, but "moral equivalent" and "are the same thing" are two different relations.

As for there being "no such thing" as a fertilized egg, many reputable sources disagree. I'll concede that another term for fertilized egg common in medical jargon is "zygote".

HOW did they get contaminated?

[Hosiah]

The question I don't see being asked is, HOW did the stem cells get contaminated? With _animal_ protein? What, was a lab assistent sloppy with eating a Big Mac on the job? Or were they deliberately (cue paranoia-meter) sabotaged? I only consider the sabotage scenario too likely. After all, we have anti-choicers burning down abortion clinics and PETA raiding cosmetics factories - it's a logical extension to picture some hothead dumping a bucket of pig fat all over the lab equipment...

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Scrameustache]

my hair is just as much human cells as an embryo - no crime getting it cut.

Only the growing basal part of the hair is alive. The rest is dead, which is why it doesn't hurt when you cut it, but it does you pull it.

I don't disagree with your point, but your example is way off : )

ding ding ding! mod parent up.

[artifex2004]

As Dave says, the lines are propagated through tissue culturing, etc. Someone screwed up the current batches, or else they'd be using them right now...

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[tgibbs]

While an embryo's brain has not formed to the point where synapses are firing and "consciousness" has been achieved you still cannot ethically snuff out his/her life.

Yet we can amputate a finger and snuff out the lives of thousands and thousands of human cells, every one of which, in principle, could be cloned into an individual human being. A woman can ethically decline to have sex during her fertile period, even though it prevents a living, human egg in her ovaries from developing into a human being with thoughts and feelings. Potential is not actuality.

For example, if we had a patient who was "brain dead" yet we knew that in a few months her brain would become conscious and walk out of the hospital, and I were to tear the unconscious body apart, society would have every right to throw my butt in jail. This is closer to the scenario we have in human beings who have not yet developed far enough to become conscious.

Yet every ovum has this same potential to develop, yet it is considered ethical to decline sex, and thereby to destroy this potential human being (or more accurately, deny it the opportunity to become a human being with thoughts and feelings). Potential is not actuality.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[EnderWiggnz]

for the record:

a D&E is the "normal" surgical abortion procedure, and is the exact same medical procedure that is performed when a woman miscarries, and needs to have her uterus cleaned out.

a partial-birth is completely different.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[monkeydo]

We don't pass laws against all immoral activity in this country. Whether or not people "should" do something is not always the relevant test. I could say quite objectively that people shouldn't smoke, but it isn't illegal, nor should it be. The fact is that there is an ongoing debate about stem cells, and there's no good reason why my tax dollars sould go to pay for what is (whether or not you want to admit it) extremely controversial research.

Re:"Effectively" is almost as good.

[EnderWiggnz]

well, when can i stop financing that whole war in iraq, then?

Re:"Effectively" is almost as good.

[The One and Only]

You keep saying that as if it's a counterargument. I agree with you.

Re:logic ? cost time analysis

[Jodka]

"The statement he made was that it would be EASIER to harvest new stem cells and grow them in serum which does not contain Neu5Gc"

True, that is how he is quoted in The Register. But the evidence given does not support that proposition for exactly the same reasons which I gave in my refutation of a similar argument.

You state correctly that I left out the "easier" part in summary. That is irrelevent, for the more complicated argument which involves "easier" is not valid either. In characterizing another's argument, it is fair to simplify by omission only if return of the omitted points does not invalidate criticism. Well what I have done is certainly legitimate, for the weaker stance of "easier" is no better supported on the evidence than the strong stance, as I characterized it.

"BTW, if you can figure out how to make SERUM not derived from an animal, let me know, would ya?"

Use human blood serum.

Morality.

[Cryptnotic]

Morals are a personal thing.

No. They're not. And they're not cultural either. There are absolutes. Some ways of life are better and more moral than others. The fact that you choose an immoral life means that you are an inferior person. Now, some people may choose to live in a morally reprehensible lifestyle, but that does not mean that the rest of us should condone it or accept it.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[OhioJoe]

GW Bush: "This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research" without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life."

GW shows his ignorance about stem cell research when he makes it seem as though embryos with fingers and toes are being harvested for stem cell research. They aren't. Blastocysts are. Blastocysts, an extremely early stage of 'embryo', are thrown out by the plateful every week by fertility clinics.... these are blastocysts that are used when needed for stem cell harvesting. In other words, no 'thumb sucking' embryos are used for stem cell harvesting, and only 150 cell blastocysts which look like a small transparent globules, which are going to waste anyhow since there is no money to do the work on them, are being used. So cutting funding is doing nothing to 'cut back' on 'embryos' from being created specifically for harvesting. There are enough blastocysts for a million scientists to do research already being produced by fertility clinics.

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

I mean, the Germans during the holocaust had no idea what they were doing was terrible.

What? Even the most hard core Nazis didn't even think that. Why do you think that the strictest secrecy was deemed necessary when it came to the operation of the death camps? Because they were a horrible, gruesome affair, that's why. To go on, mass murder by machine gunning naked civilians (as in Babi Yar) was deemed unsuitable, not because of a lack of efficiency, but because the high command was affraid that the psychological toll on the troops would ultimately be too high. A more humane method (to the troops carrying out the murders) was adopted in the form of gassings. Why do you think that camps that were closed (such as Treblinka) long before the risk of being overrun were obliterated, as if nothing had ever happened there? Hardly the work of someone who thinks he's done nothing wrong. If you have nothing to hide hy not just leave it there? No, they clearly knew they were up to no good. They rationalised this with it being a necessary evil and in the cause of a greater good, but that it was fundamentally wrong wasn't lost on the vast, vast majority of the people doing the dirty work.

No, the guilt of the contemporary german population who in their own words "Didn't know" was not in the fact that they didn't know. Hitler and Himmler made it damn difficult to know. It was in the fact that they didn't question.

Re:Coincidence?

[essreenim]

Do you realize nothing you said made any sense?

Do you realize that nothing you said made any sense?

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[jazman]

> If this is about abortion, why not oppose abortion, rather than research?

Yeah, right. You tried opposing abortion recently? If you're not female you get slapped down straight away because "you can't possibly know" and all that.

Then just about any reasonable objection gets slapped down for being extremist, no matter how moderately expressed. Or you get called a religious nut.

Resisting abortion appears to be futile. This leaves opposition to anything derived from abortion, such as stem cell research.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[jazman]

> BTW, I don't see any reason why fertilization for research only is a problem at all.

Depends where you view life as starting. There are arguments all over where a foetus actually becomes a life; my own opinion (stress OPINION) is that fertilisation is the point where that life begins, and if you extinguish that spark, then you eliminate up to 100-odd years of useful contribution to the human race by denying that spark the right to life.

So my problem with fertilisation for research is the same as your problem with research on foetuses/children/teenagers/adults beyond where you feel that point exists.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Hatta]

Well of course life starts at conception. If you wanted to argue that life started at meiosis, I wouldn't argue. Thing is, not all life is created equal. Humans are alive, but so are dogs, cows, ocotopi, sea cucubmers, real cucumbers, spinach, portabello, green mold, E. coli, and so on. Every time I brush my teeth, I am taking millions of lives.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Doc Ruby]

Well, "intelligence" is a slippery concept, because there's so little consensus on its meaning. I think that intelligence is a measure of the accuracy of the model in the mind of the world outside: what it is, how it works. Bush's world is paradoxical: it includes so much of the world, more than most people, because he's an actor on the world stage. His actions and words directly (and powerfully, though indirectly) affect the lives of billions of people in evey corner of the world. But his world is constructed by other people; it always has been. He's probably never had an original though in his life, beyond his single-digit years, when Jeb beat the habit out of him. His world is huge, but his paths through it are hugely constrained. His knowledge of the world off that path is miniscule, and repressed by fear and hate. So I'd say that, though his ability to act on the real world is very large, his model of the world in his mind is small, flimsy, and mostly wrong.

But what he's got is a map of several hundred tremendously powerful people, some of whom are very intelligent in the terms described. As you point out, he's got very insightful techniques in manipulating that world. But his constant mistakes, even in talking about things in which he's not interested (most everything governmental), betray his crude model of the world beyond his (bidirectional) puppetmasters. He's not very smart, but he is lucky. That he was born into such a position of inevitable power, including being programmed to be used by the powerful. For all his social engineering of people close to him, he can't adapt to anything (or anyone) new - his model does not include techniques for learning. He's a boy in a tiny, powerful bubble. He knows it well, but only within it. That's pretty stupid. Woe is us.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Grishnakh]

While many "Christians" may engage in this doublethink, do not fool yourself into believing that these people are representative of true Christianity.

This is total BS. Every time anyone points out how hypocritical Christians are, or criticizes them in any way, someone like you always says, "those people aren't true Christians." Yeah, right. So how many "true" Christians are there? 5?

The fact is, Christianity is a huge religion both worldwide, and here in the USA. Probably about 50% of Americans are active Christians, from figures I've seen. Just because you think your beliefs are more "pure" than theirs doesn't mean you can call them "fake"; why should I, as a non-Christian, believe you over them?

As a non-Christian, I judge Christians as a group by the actions they take. Christianity is a large group, and has different factions, so of course I do understand that these factions may sometimes disagree and act differently, much like the Sunni and Shia Muslims do. However, when I or any other outside observer makes a judgment on Christians, we're basing it on the actions of the majority. If your tiny sect with 5 people happens to act differently, it doesn't matter, because the majority of millions of people doesn't agree with you. It's much like calling Americans "fat"; that's a valid statement, because 75% of Americans are indeed overweight, and 50% are obese. You might have a BMI of 17, but you'd be an exception. Would you claim that all the overweight Americans aren't "true Americans" because they're not like you, even when they're in the vast majority?

I believe that if Jesus were to comment on the things that these people spout He would be very disappointed.

Here in Phoenix, on MLK day last week, there were some gatherings downtown, and a large group of black youth took that time to start a riot. Riot police came in with horses, pepper-sprayed them, and broke it all up, but I wondered what Dr. King would have to say about this kind of incident on his memorial day. I'm sure he would be disappointed too, but other black people can't say that those kids aren't "true" black people.

So please, cut out the "true Christian" thing. I for one am utterly sick of it. If you don't like being criticized for the actions of your group (that being Christians), then stop claiming to be a member of it. Unlike your race and nationality, membership in a religion is voluntary.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[spasmatik]

That doesn't change my point at all. The opposition claim that they are or will be used.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[LifesABeach]

I go an create a human clone, and its first words are, "Hi Gang". Someone is going to pay.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[EvilLile]

My opinion isn't relevant to what I was pointing out, namely that the parent post had a weak argument. Changes of subject like that are what makes arguments like abortion into the cesspool that they are.

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[Lord Kano]

What's so bad about partial birth abortion? It's primarily used for severe hydrocephalics. The fetus has a head the size of a basketball and is in no way viable.

Hydrocephaly in no way makes a child non-viable.

I was born with a large head. In fact, my head was so large that the doctors thought that I was hydrocephalic. They wanted to put a shunt into my brain to drain the excess fluid. My mother refused to allow it. It turns out that I wasn't hydrocephalic, I just had a really big head. For the first few months of my life the head circumference measurements put me in the 100th percentile. To this day, I still have a larger than usual head. Unless I shave my head bald, I can't wear baseball caps.

Your statement is a lie. There is never a medical necessity for the partial birth abortion. No doctor was willing to risk his or her professional reputation by saying that there was when the debate was before congress.

LK

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[shrubya]

Umm... that's his whole fucking point. The extra IVF embryos are ALREADY being destroyed, usually by being thrown in a medical-grade incinerator. But for some reason the R2L folks don't protest that even a tenth as much as stem cell research.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Agripa]

At that point in time the research did not require cells that would be suitable for use in humans. The cell lines were NOT useless for the research that was being done at the time and there was every expectation that new uncontaminated cell lines could be created and used in the future. Only at this point now several years later have they gotten to doing useful human trials and research where uncontaminated cell lines would be required.

My theory is that Bush or those advising him knew about this very problem and passed the executive order anyway knowing that these cell lines would become near useless in the future. By doing so, he was able to simultaneously satisfy those who wanted all the research banned for whatever reason and not look like a complete luddite to others.

It will be just deserts if Bush comes down with a disease that could have been treated with the research he has essentially forbidden. Some other recent presidents come to mind as having been in this situation.

Thank you for proving my point

[Engineer-Poet]

You know full well what the poster was referring to in its political context. He was talking about an abortion of an embryo. Yes, that is not "an abortion". It is an "embryo abortion."

You seem to have mistaken the propaganda for reality. I know full well what the poster meant. I called the poster on his attempt to co-opt an inapplicable word (abortion) to apply to something that happens between a petri dish and the sink.

I call you on this too. There are no embryos in fertility clinics. Blastocysts can only develop into embryos after implantation at around day 6; using the word "embryo" in this context is also political propaganda rather than medical fact. (The "embryonic stage" covers zygotes, blastocysts, gastrula and the other pre-fetus stages of development. See this? That stage comes two and a half weeks AFTER implantation.) If you said "blastocyst death" I would agree that the definition is correct.

I apologize that no one has created a specialized medical term to refer specifically to the destruction of IVF embryos.

I just called it what it is. Why weren't you honest enough to do it first? Do you place propaganda effectiveness ahead of truth? People who do, deserve no respect.

He was arguing that the destruction of these embryos constitutes a more dilemma for those who believe these embryos to constitute human life

That's nice for them. Why can't they mind their own business, like people who keep kashrut or the Jains?

Well, here's a term that is defined by biology: "life'. Living things have these properties: they have a metabolism, they are homeostatic, they respond to stimuli, they reproduce

That same definition of "life" applies equally to sperm and ova. Biologically, there is no "beginning of life" in the last few billion years; there are only stages in the lives of organisms.

It follows that embryos are living humans. And the crux of the point you chose to ignore is whether these 'living humans' who are not necessarily conscious at this point still count.

Roughly two thirds of all human zygotes ever formed fail to make it to live birth, with about half lost before becoming embryos. Nobody, not even (especially!) the pro-lifers, takes their demise as any sort of tragedy. The blastocysts used for research are in the same stages of development as those which are lost to natural causes. From both the lesson of biology and the universal practice of our society it follows that they are of little value, and perhaps the application of the term "living humans" to them is inappropriate.

Right so far as you go.

[hey!]

But company B cannot sell their invention without company A's approval. Company A can continue to sell their original invention, but they can't use the improvement creatd by company B without licensing it.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[spamsk8r]

That wasn't really the point I was making. There is no fundamental belief in Christianity that promotes warfarw, crass capitalism, or other injustices. Just because many people who call themselves Christians may believe in these things, they are not integral to the belief system, which is what I was attempting to point out. If anything, Christianity is against these things, if one goes by the teachings of Christ. On the same note, I don't believe that we should generalize Muslims just because some of them engage in terrorist activities. Admittedly, I do not know whether or not these actions are integral to Islam, but I would assume not.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[malfunct]

Does the ban on funding block funding studies on the stem cells extracted from umbilical cord blood? I was pretty sure you could get clean stem cells from that.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[Grishnakh]

There is no fundamental belief in Christianity that promotes warfarw, crass capitalism, or other injustices. Just because many people who call themselves Christians may believe in these things, they are not integral to the belief system, which is what I was attempting to point out.

My point is that most Christians do support these things, as evidenced by their actions. Not just some small minority of Christians, but most; we learned that in the recent election.

Maybe you don't think they're "true" Christians, or that they're not acting according to Christ's teachings, but none of that matters. Christians, as a group, are not defined by what their religion was supposedly founded on. They're defined by their actions in the present.

As for Muslims, you're right that most of them don't engage in terrorist activities, which makes that a bad comparison to Christians, who do mostly believe in war and aggression. However, Muslims as a whole do believe in many bad things, such as war and poor treatment of women. This is evidenced by their behaviors in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. There was an incident not too long ago about a woman sentenced to be stoned to death in an Islamic African country because she got pregnant out of wedlock. Is this in line with Mohammed's teachings? I really don't care. Mohammed is long since dead, as is Jesus, but "Islam" is defined today by the actions of its followers, which includes such atrocities as this.

Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children

[SeanAhern]

You can't survive without external sustenance. Why should I consider you alive? A newborn baby has to be warmed, fed, its wastes removed, etc. Basically, a similar job to that of the proposed artificial womb, at some level.

In your mind, what is the difference? And why does such a difference form the basis of the definition of "life"?

I'm sorry but you're still spreading mythology.

[porkchop_d_clown]

Embryonic stem cells are easier to work with but they also have all sorts of problems when it comes to developing therapies - for example, causing tumors.

Placental and adult stem cells are more limited but are also being used in a number therapies today; they shouldn't be conflated with the more problematic fetal tissue.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[DavidTC]

The research is only controversial because idiots think it has something to do with abortion. IVF isn't controversial at all.

And tax money goes towards a lot of controversial things, anyway. It goes towards animal testing, which is a hell of a lot more controversial than taking eight cells that happen to be human that were left over from IVF.

Animals can feel pain, while pulling a hair kills more than eight cells. (I'm not against animal research, I'm just pointing out idiotic this 'standard' is.)

I don't know where the boundary of 'human' is but it sure as hell isn't eight or sixteen or thirty-two cells sitting in a test tube.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[monkeydo]

IVF isn't controversial at all.

I say, "What rock do you live under?"

And tax money goes towards a lot of controversial things, anyway. It goes towards animal testing, which is a hell of a lot more controversial than taking eight cells that happen to be human that were left over from IVF.

Animal testing is more controversial than stem cells? Have you been spending all of your time at PETA meetings?

If you can't make a distiction between human life and animals, then I feel for you. BTW, there's more than one source for stem cells, including abortions and fetuses created specifically for that purpose. But, I guess I'm the "idiot".

I don't know where the boundary of 'human' is but it sure as hell isn't eight or sixteen or thirty-two cells sitting in a test tube.

So where is it? Before implantation? After implantation? Birth? After the cord is cut? Once the kid stops breast feeding?

need a biomed expert here...

[museumpeace]

..which doesn't seem to be a specialty much in vogue with most of our commenters:( a scan of the comments would leave you thinking the topic was some pretext for venomous and misinformed rankor.) But there was some interesting science in TFA:

Their experiments indicate that we pick up the sugars from the foods we eat--in particular beef and other meat from mammals. Our cells absorb the foreign Neu5Gc and stick them on their surfaces, alongside their normal Neu5Ac sugars. It's possible that their similarity fools our cells into making this mistake. This happens only rarely, but often enough that we develop antibodies to Neu5Gc.

What I find striking about this information is that it fits with the recently pubulished findings of strong correlation between colon cancer and eating red meat. I got no axe to grind one way or the other on meat eating but I am curious if it is reasonable to suspect that correlation has to do with riling up our immune systems against our very cells when they glom on to "foriegn" sugars.

Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U

[LWATCDR]

You know you are correct. I have never heard of anyone protesting IVF. Doesn't mean that it does not happen mind you but it must be pretty rare.

Logical consistency

[SeanDuggan]

Where's the logic here ? If stem-cell research should be banned because allowing a Day-5 blast to arrest is killing a baby, why do they not have any issue with, or even debate over the effects of the IVF treatments where the stem-cells for this research are obtained ?
Actually, Catholics are indeed against IVF, as well as a number of other reproductive technologies that involve planned deaths. *shrug* Just figured it was worth mentioning that they are consistent, even if you don't agree with them.

Re:Logical consistency

[Dave21212]

Sean, thanks... someone named "SDF-7" posted a great link to an insightful article.

I see that the catholic church is rather consitently against modern contraceptives (why can't I say I that without hearing that Month Python song in my head ;) I'm questioning why they would put so much effort into fighting against life-saving research based on the whole "one-cell eggs are people too" argument, while at the same time thousands (and yes, I mean thousands) of eggs are destroyed every month at infertility clinics...

Even in personal conversatons I've had, people can't seem to resolve the dilema - they claim they are against embryonic stem-cell research (it kills babies), but make excuses as to why IVF is acceptable (it helps couples) - even though IVF worldwide probably destroys as many eggs in a week as the research would in 10 years !!!

Thanks again for the reply...

Definitions

[SeanDuggan]

In addition, in order to be logically consistent, an anti-ES person must be against women's birth control hormones. Why? Because typically the contraceptive hormones do NOT prevent conception, they merely make the uterine wall lining a less hospitable place for a zygote to develop. So then the next time the woman goes to the bathrooom...wooosh, down the toilet goes the "person".
{nods} Which was an interesting bit of semantic wordplay when they put the change through to allow "contraceptive" to refer to items which didn't prevent conception at all. Then, there's that little factoid where a small percentage of them do implant, but are then essentially starved by the horomones cutting out their food supply. Makes you wonder how long it will be before methods of early-term abortion (other than RU486) are also labeled as "contraceptives." *wry grin* And again, at the least the Catholic position is consistent here.

Unfortunately, the media presents the issue as if little babies were being killed for their cells...infact, a cluster of 32 cells that have not differentiated into any of the embryonic germ layers hardly constitute an organism at all, let alone what we consider a "person".
Probably doesn't help the case when the media was talking all about harvesting stem cells from victims of partial-birth abortions. There, I'm guessing it was actually adult stem cells of some sort being used, but since the average viewer doesn't know the difference between embryonic and adult stem cells...