Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Human Embryonic Stem Cell Study Approved

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the new-things-to-argue-about dept.

dogmatixpsych writes "The FDA recently approved a privately funded study where human embryonic stem cells will be transplanted into subjects with complete spinal cord injuries. All trials will be paid for and conducted by researchers working for Geron Corporation. The stem cells come from the existing lines Pres. Bush approved federal funding for in August 2001. With Barack Obama now president, many scientists believe federal funding will soon become available for embryonic stem cell research on new cell lines, resulting in additional similar studies."

139 comments

  1. Yay Obama! by Obama · · Score: 1, Funny

    Good move! I say Obama should be given a raise, free beer, moderations at +5, and infinite karma!

    1. Re:Yay Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      The question I have for Obama is this: Who is stimulating the economy? The white man who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single fat colored mammy sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check?

      Yours in Christ,
      Hal Turner

    2. Re:Yay Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No more Karma, lest he explode.

    3. Re:Yay Obama! by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why, Obama didn't do anything specific on this. The ban on stem cell research was always dealing with public finds. This article, even in the summery, says that it is being privately funded.

      Also, the timing is just too close to Obama's term to be something he has done. The FDA requires some pretty stringent studies and tests before it will allow something to be tested on humans. The request to the FDA for approval for the trials/stufy was probably filed months ago with tests and stuff being done years before that. It's been less then a week since Obama took office and I doubt that is enough time to submit, review, qualify and approve something with the FDA.

      If you need to cheer something, cheer private industry that didn't sit around waiting for the government to hand them money to get what they wanted to do done. Hurray for capitalism and private charity.

    4. Re:Yay Obama! by Obama · · Score: 1

      Whoosh

    5. Re:Yay Obama! by cekander · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hurray for private charity, yes. But capitalism? I fail to see what capitalism has to do with with this. What makes you so sure this wouldn't have been done a long time ago if capitalism weren't around?

    6. Re:Yay Obama! by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      Hurray for private charity, yes. But capitalism? I fail to see what capitalism has to do with with this.

      Possible answers:
      1. The GP was quoting Austin Powers.
      2. It's hard to have "private charity" without "private enterprise" to provide the funds.
      3. A libertarian was taking a cheap shot.

      What makes you so sure this wouldn't have been done a long time ago if capitalism weren't around?

      Can you name a country that could fund this research (publicly or privately) that doesn't have an economy based primarily on capitalism? Even the most "socialist" of Nordic countries still uses the private sector to generate the wealth that their public sector uses.

  2. Food nor Drug by planckscale · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Would stem cell therapy be considered drug therapy? I wonder why the FDA provides approval? Is that the only government agency that enforces this type of research? Me thinks it's great that this "work toward curing disease such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and diabetes." is finally getting the approval it deserves.

    --
    Namaste
    1. Re:Food nor Drug by Retric · · Score: 4, Informative

      The FDA also approves medical devices like pacemakers. While the name might not cover such things the agency covers a lot of ground.

    2. Re:Food nor Drug by PotatoFarmer · · Score: 1

      Would stem cell therapy be considered drug therapy?

      Why wouldn't it? I would imagine it falls under the same general FDA guidelines as other biological agents, like deactivated virus vaccines.

    3. Re:Food nor Drug by planckscale · · Score: 1

      ah hah, I see, like botox and other bacterial medicines. Yes that makes sense now. thanks!

      --
      Namaste
    4. Re:Food nor Drug by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Informative

      Me thinks it's great that this "work toward curing disease such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and diabetes." is finally getting the approval it deserves.

      It should be noted that, since this study is privately funded, it could have been done at any time during the Bush or Clinton Presidencies.

      It should be further noted that, since this study uses one of the "approved" stem cell lines, it could have acquired Federal funding during the Bush Presidency (but not during the Clinton Presidency, since when Clinton was President NO stem cell research was getting Federal funding).

      In other words, this particular study provides no evidence whatsoever that anything has changed in any way, however slight.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:Food nor Drug by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The reason it is only now getting "the approval it deserves" is because this is the first study of embryonic stem cell that has shown any promise.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    6. Re:Food nor Drug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Not the Drug part... the food part.

      Embryos are babies - babies are food - therefore it falls under the FDA

    7. Re:Food nor Drug by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      I thought meat was under the department of agriculture.

    8. Re:Food nor Drug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Indeed. All the other advances have been done with adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells have major hurdles to overcome (e.g. rejection) before they're ever useful.

      Bush was actually right on this one, even if he didn't know why.

    9. Re:Food nor Drug by plnix0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      ah hah, I see, like botulinum toxin and other toxic medicines. Yes that makes sense now. thanks!

    10. Re:Food nor Drug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      > it could have been done at any time during the
      > Bush

      No. They filed the IND (investigational new drug) application over a year ago. The FDA placed a hold on the start of the clinical trial. Not until after Obama's inauguration was it lifted.

    11. Re:Food nor Drug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I watched my friend die of acute parkinsons thanks to Bush. He was 45 years old.

  3. About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Thanks Bush for making it so life-saving treatment research got delayed so much. You stupid fuck.

    1. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll
      "The stem cells come from the existing lines Pres. Bush approved federal funding for in August 2001."

      I am sorry, what the fuck were you saying you ignorant cunt? The Bush is bad montra is SO boring. And false, apparently.

    2. Re:About time by R2.0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Thanks Bush for making it so life-saving treatment research got delayed so much. You stupid fuck."

      Fuck Yeah! Because we KNOW it will work, and we KNOW that the existing lines are useless, and we KNOW that the only thing stopping the miracle cures was lack of Federal funding, and we KNOW there won't be side affects, and we KNOW that adult stem cell research will amount to nothing.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    3. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ugh.

      It requires a lot of time and money to find another way to do something we already know how to do. So whether adult stem cells will amount to something or not, we spent several years doing very little else.

      However long it takes for the treatments to come to market, wouldn't it have been a lot nicer for them to come to market five years earlier?

    4. Re:About time by BigDukeSix · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Amen.

      There is a common belief that embryonic stem cells, because they have the potential to differentiate into any cell line instead of just one or two, are somehow "better" than the other myriad types of cells. This ignores the fact that it's much harder to stop ESCs from continuing to differentiate, which is why you get tumors at an alarming rate.

      This is in turn rooted in another common incorrect notion, namely that stem cells repair injury by differentiating into new cells and tissue. The first decade of research in this field has largely disproved this notion. Instead, stem cells seem to alter the host response to injury, such that normal repair mechanisms function much more effectively. Stem cells tend to get stuck in the lungs when given intravenously, but still result in improved repair at remote sites; conversely, after direct injection of cells into a site of injury, most of those cells are someplace else in the body after 24 hours.

      This is why the Geron trial is limited to spinal cord injuries that are less than two weeks old. Once scar formation has occurred, this therapeutic target is gone, and there is currently no notion of how to truly "reconstruct" a spinal cord in a long-standing paraplegic patient.

  4. Gotta love the FDA by J'raxis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Gotta love the FDA. How long has this technology been around before they finally approved the first human tests of it? Did you know that if current FDA regulations had been in place at the time, neither penicillin nor aspirin would have ever been approved for human use?

    --
    Liberty in your lifetime
    1. Re:Gotta love the FDA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      [[citation needed]]

    2. Re:Gotta love the FDA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Did you know that if current FDA regulations had been in place at the time, neither penicillin nor aspirin would have ever been approved for human use?

      Ummm... They may be slow and crappy, but ever? Methinks you may exaggerate...

    3. Re:Gotta love the FDA by J'raxis · · Score: 1, Informative

      Chapter six of Healing Our World: The Other Piece of the Puzzle by Dr. Mary J. Ruwart.

      --
      Liberty in your lifetime
    4. Re:Gotta love the FDA by J'raxis · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not at all. I posted the full source above, but I'll excerpt the important part to demonstrate my point: "Aspirin deforms the unborn young of almost every animal species but humans and could not be marketed today if it had to go through FDA evaluations." In other words, its beneficial effects never would have been demonstrated because it would have been rejected before it even made it to human trials.

      --
      Liberty in your lifetime
    5. Re:Gotta love the FDA by R2.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or, it could be that the technology just wasn't ready yet? Christopher Reeve, may he rest in peace, did medical research a tremendous disservice by giving the impression that stem cell research could allow him to walk again. In the popular culture, this got translated to "Bush killed Superman!!!". But it takes years for ANY therapeutic treatment to get approval for human trials, even the most minor of drugs.

      Oh, and remember Thalidomide?

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    6. Re:Gotta love the FDA by cabjf · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, they still advise against taking Aspirin while pregnant. Pretty much all my wife was allowed to take was Tylenol for her first trimester migraines. I bet Aspirin could have past those trials with warnings not to consume while pregnant or possible pregnant being the outcome.

    7. Re:Gotta love the FDA by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      But it takes years for ANY therapeutic treatment to get approval for human trials, even the most minor of drugs.

      That... was my point. How many people are dying because the government wants to keep people safe? I guess dying of natural causes because of the nonexistence of a cure is better than dying from a drug prematurely brought to market...

      Oh, and remember Thalidomide?

      Hey, that book chapter I posted above even has a section about this: It's called, "The Illusion of Protection: Thalidomide."

      --
      Liberty in your lifetime
    8. Re:Gotta love the FDA by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      Aspirin isnt Tylenol, Ibuprofen, Advil, etc. Only real Aspirin is disallowed during pregnancy. Lots of drugs are disallowed during pregnancy. The idea that this would lead to a complete ban is ridiculous.

    9. Re:Gotta love the FDA by R2.0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      That... was my point. How many people are dying because the government wants to keep people safe? I guess dying of natural causes because of the nonexistence of a cure is better than dying from a drug prematurely brought to market...

      It has nothing to do with what's logical; it has to with what people WANT. Congress didn't make up the regulation from thin air; their constituents were screaming for it. Were their constituents easily panicked lemmings? Yup. But you'll never convince the populace that they are wrong using logic. It's not fair, but it is reality.

      Hey, that book chapter I posted above even has a section about this: It's called, "The Illusion of Protection: Thalidomide."

      I read the Thalidomide parts and skimmed some of the other paragraphs, and she kept talking about "agression". So I clicked on the book cover. Here's an exertp of the blurb on the flyleaf:

      Dr. Ruwart shows us how to transcend these win-lose scenarios by systematically applying the win-win tactics to our social interaction that have proves so successful in our personal lives. HEALING OUR WORLD is the first book to integrate the common elements of our Judeo-Christian heritage, the personal self-responsibility of the Aquarian Age, and the political self-responsibility of the worldwide libertarian movement. "The Easy Way Out" os the realization that others do not create our global harmony and abundance any more than they create our inner peace and enrichment; our reactions to others determine our fate.

      So, libertarian views on government, Judeo-Christian view on morality, and "Aquarian Age" views on personal responsibility. Sorry, I don't generally take advise from schizophrenics.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    10. Re:Gotta love the FDA by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      I read the Thalidomide parts and skimmed some of the other paragraphs, and she kept talking about "agression". So I clicked on the book cover. Here's an exertp of the blurb on the flyleaf:

      I know what the book is about; I've actually read the whole book.

      Dr. Ruwart shows us how to transcend these win-lose scenarios by systematically applying the win-win tactics to our social interaction that have proves so successful in our personal lives. HEALING OUR WORLD is the first book to integrate the common elements of our Judeo-Christian heritage, the personal self-responsibility of the Aquarian Age, and the political self-responsibility of the worldwide libertarian movement. "The Easy Way Out" os the realization that others do not create our global harmony and abundance any more than they create our inner peace and enrichment; our reactions to others determine our fate.

      So, libertarian views on government, Judeo-Christian view on morality, and "Aquarian Age" views on personal responsibility. Sorry, I don't generally take advise from schizophrenics.

      Riiight... Well, when you're ready to act like an adult instead jamming your fingers in your ears because you're hearing something that challenges your current world view, we can continue this debate. :)

      In the meantime, if you want to understand what the big deal with "aggression" is, feel free to read "The Gun in the Room" by Stefan Molyneux. Of course, if you'd like to just dismiss that guy out of hand, too, some people think he's the leader of some sort of cult, so feel free to just point to that and ignore the substance of the essay.

      --
      Liberty in your lifetime
    11. Re:Gotta love the FDA by philspear · · Score: 1

      Gotta love the FDA. How long has this technology been around before they finally approved the first human tests of it? Did you know that if current FDA regulations had been in place at the time, neither penicillin nor aspirin would have ever been approved for human use?

      The FDA also prevented Thalidomide from being sold wholesale in the country before the effects of it were known. Not the case in europe, as a result there were a lot of ugly birth defects.

      Regulation is not going to be perfect ever, as we all learned in junior high, and have learned continuously since then. Still, I'd rather have an overly cautious and slow moving bureacracy investigating medicines and treatments than just hoping big pharmecuticals listen to their conscience. Mostly because they have none. Oversight is definitely needed.

    12. Re:Gotta love the FDA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe that would have been a good thing. I get a severe allergic reaction to aspirin.

    13. Re:Gotta love the FDA by Phortune · · Score: 3, Informative

      In fairness, aspirin is fairly hazardous for quite a few people because of, among other things, its blood thinning properties (e.g. bad for anyone on warfarin or other anti-coagulants); as well as for people with stomach ulcers, because of the irritation it can cause. There are so many other pain-killers available now, that are comparatively safe, that aspirin's use for its analgesic properties has all but died out in my country (UK). Like gad_zuki! said before me, lots of drugs are prohibited during pregnancy for myriad reasons. There are usually plenty of alternatives and the benefits seldom outweigh the risks for pregnant mothers.

    14. Re:Gotta love the FDA by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Only real Aspirin is disallowed during pregnancy

      Are you sure about that? It is my understanding all Aspirin commonly purchased is actually synthetically manufactured Aspirin. I'm not sure you can still get "real" Aspirin. Real Aspirin comes from the bark of a white willow tree where use of the bark dates at least as far back as the Romans.

    15. Re:Gotta love the FDA by mr_mischief · · Score: 2, Informative

      IANA physician or pharmacist, so this isn't qualified medical advice. Do research from better sources than Slashdot when health is concerned. This is just a tip to a couple of those sources.

      They actually recommend against aspirin as a
      fever reducer in children under the age of about 16, too. Reye's syndrome is a rare but dangerous sickness that can be triggered in victims of the chicken pox or flu viruses when given aspirin.

      Any viral infection, particularly one in which the first symptom is fever, should not be treated with aspirin. This is true according to the NIH even in adults, but I've always heard it was especially true for children.

      See the pages about Reye's at MedicineNet, WebMD, or the US National Institutes of Health or ask your doctor for more info.

      Aspirin also has other contraindications, but it has many positive uses as a medicine. Very little in life is without drawbacks, unfortunately.

    16. Re:Gotta love the FDA by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      Regulation is not going to be perfect ever, as we all learned in junior high, and have learned continuously since then. Still, I'd rather have an overly cautious and slow moving bureacracy investigating medicines and treatments than just hoping big pharmecuticals listen to their conscience. Mostly because they have none. Oversight is definitely needed.

      Did you read the article I linked to in an earlier post? They give actual numbers as to how many people have been killed by this "overly cautious" bureaucracy trying to protect them---30,000 in the case of a drug called propranolol, as just one example. Ever heard of a bad drug killing 30,000 people?

      than just hoping big pharmecuticals listen to their conscience. Mostly because they have none. Oversight is definitely needed.

      And the government has a conscience?

      --
      Liberty in your lifetime
    17. Re:Gotta love the FDA by philspear · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of a bad drug killing 30,000 people?

      No, because we have the FDA and it runs perfectly :-D. Kidding, but thalidomide, which the FDA stopped, caused 10,000 birth defects worldwide. Not to mention that FDA trials killed innumerable drugs which did well in mice but were worthless in humans. Each had lots of money sunk into them. Without the FDA, many of those drugs would have been sold anyway, in an attempt to recoup the losses. You're naive if you think otherwise.

      And the government has a conscience?

      Clever, but not the issue here. The FDA is needed to keep bad drugs from being pushed to market by corporate greed. The alternative is scum selling snake oil again, as it was before the FDA.

    18. Re:Gotta love the FDA by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      They give actual numbers as to how many people have been killed by this "overly cautious" bureaucracy trying to protect them---30,000 in the case of a drug called propranolol, as just one example. Ever heard of a bad drug killing 30,000 people?

      Well there's a clever line of reasoning! It doesn't matter whether we have good, solid, scientific evidence that a substance is effective, safe, and side-effect free. All we need is some guy claiming it works! To hell with proper testing!

      I propose we overhaul the FDA: just have them grant approval to every quack who comes along with a new idea. Start with Homeopathy - it should be INSTANTLY certified since it's guaranteed not to have any side-effects whatsoever.

      Hey, that reminds me, did you know that battery acid cures the common cold? It's true! You should try it, next time you get sick. No need to wait for the FDA to check it, just trust me on this one! Once we finish overhauling the FDA, I'll have no problem getting approved.

    19. Re:Gotta love the FDA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ibuprofen is disallowed during pregnancy.

    20. Re:Gotta love the FDA by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      So he's a libertarian. BFD. I've worked for years with a pretty hardcore libertarian myself, and I agree with some of his views. We have had quite spirited debates on various libertarian theories, and he's a quite accomplished debater. But it wasn't the libertarianism that turns me off. My point was that the author of this book seemed to be drawing together 3 wildly differing philosophies - that's if you can call "Aquarian Age" a coherent philosophy.

      Don't pretend that all I need to do is "open my mind". I believe it is you who needs to open his eyes - the populace doesn't WANT the responsibility that libertarianism offers. It's not a matter of philosophy, but psychology - people want a minimum of constraints AND a minimum of risk. they believe that laws and government will give them that. Whether it actually accomplishes that is irrelevant.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  5. Political BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "With Barack Obama now president, many scientists believe federal funding will soon become available for embryonic stem cell research on new cell lines, resulting in additional similar studies."

    Is there a way to stop with the political jabs and bullshit that has been floating around /. for the past few days? It's annoying.

    1. Re:Political BS by Ninnle+Linux · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What exactly is BS in what you quoted? Are you disputing the well-known fact that Bush disallowed funding for new stem cell lines beyond those already established? Or are you disputing the claim that many scientists believe that with the new administration that this will be changed? You're going to have a hard time claiming either as BS.

    2. Re:Political BS by R2.0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bush disallowed GOVERNMENT funding of new cell lines, not private funding. If embryonic stem cells were the miracle cure that people have been claiming, you'd think there'd be plenty of private money for it.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    3. Re:Political BS by R2.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Is there a way to stop with the political jabs and bullshit that has been floating around /. for the past few days? It's annoying."

      You ARE aware this is Slashdot, right?

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    4. Re:Political BS by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 1

      But the statement the AC originally claimed was a 'bullshit political jab' explicitly referred to federal funding. So, like the GP, I have to ask how exactly is it bullshit to say that scientists expect the Obama administration to release federal funding for new cell lines? Is that such an outlandish assertion? I'm genuinely curious.

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    5. Re:Political BS by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      The OP didn't say "bullshit political jab", he said "political jabs and bullshit". This implies that the political jabs are the part he's most irritated at, and the bullshit that goes with them. And I agree with him. Slashdot seems to have a pattern where EVERY topic has Bush's name invoked. Why?

      I once asked what those posters were going to do once Obama took office. Apparently, the answer was that Bush will remain the bogeyman until the next republican president.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    6. Re:Political BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new here.

    7. Re:Political BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's like the lament that MTV doesn't play music videos anymore....political activists have turned digg and, to a lesser degree, slashdot into their soap boxes. And they'll never be the same again.

    8. Re:Political BS by KeithJM · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bush disallowed GOVERNMENT funding of new cell lines, not private funding.

      Bush actually disallowed any lab which receives government funding from doing research with new stem cell lines. That effectively meant that private funding didn't just have to pay for the research, but BUILDING AN IDENTICAL LAB for any university or organization that had a single government research grant.

    9. Re:Political BS by philspear · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the amount of paperwork that required, ensuring that not so much as a 10 cent pipette tip purchased using federal funding was used for that. You know, because the best use of our researchers is filling out more forms, not doing research.

    10. Re:Political BS by philspear · · Score: 1

      Bush disallowed GOVERNMENT funding of new cell lines, not private funding.

      The vast majority of research funding comes from federal funds. Private funding is generally spent on better investments, like a slightly better form of viagra, not primary research which will not directly lead to something profitable. And primary research that doesn't produce anything directly besides knowledge is essential to pretty much all new technology. Radio could not have been developed without Maxwell's equations, which by themselves were not something you could sell.

      Fortunately, not all government funding was cut. I've heard what's driving embryonic stem cell research these days is state funding.

      If embryonic stem cells were the miracle cure that people have been claiming, you'd think there'd be plenty of private money for it.

      See above. Private entities don't like to invest in research which is not a "sure thing," or won't yeild anything concrete besides advancement of knowledge, but that's usually the most important research.

  6. Another big corporate handout in the making. by tjstork · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    At least we can safely say that Democrats have no problem with corporate welfare either. Yep, all of these embryonic stem cells are miracle cures, but, god forbid, every biotech company feels the need to pony up to Washington so Obama can pay for the research.

    Man, there's been a law that said that private companies can't do their own stem cell research, its only been federal funding. And if these stem cells require so much federal funding to research, just how great can they really be? I would think a farsighted company would invest in this stuff on its own merit. I mean, if Microsoft can blow $100 million in 199x dollars to make Bob and Clippy, don't you think a big pharma company could fund a drug based on stem cells that might make people walk again? Geez, I would think the demand justifies the research. But oh no, scientists and the suits they work for are too lazy to even take that risk, and its taxpayers on the hook for that too.

    It's bad enough that universities are already allowed to patent research that taxpayers pay for, which is pretty much bullshit. Now, we have to pay these people to research something that they will patent so that they can turn around and charge us millions of dollars for a drug we've already paid for. What a bunch of crooks. Burn Harvard down!

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Another big corporate handout in the making. by Obama · · Score: 0

      What? Why me? I'm broke!

    2. Re:Another big corporate handout in the making. by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At least we can safely say that Democrats have no problem with corporate welfare either. Yep, all of these embryonic stem cells are miracle cures, but, god forbid, every biotech company feels the need to pony up to Washington so Obama can pay for the research.

      Right and like 10 TRILLION in bailouts thanks to REPUBLICAN screwups isn't corporate welfare? At least R&D funding has a decent chance to make our lives better. The bailouts are just going to office redecoration, golf trips, spa trips and fat bonuses.

    3. Re:Another big corporate handout in the making. by Hatta · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As someone who works in biological research I sort of agree with you. Not that we shouldn't be funding scientific research, but no one should be able to patent research done with public money. I like the NIH rule that any federally funded research must be published in an open access journal. I would argue for another rule, that any patents from federally funded research must be licensed freely, if granted at all.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Another big corporate handout in the making. by jcnnghm · · Score: 5, Informative

      The REPUBLICANS weren't behind the "affordable housing mission". Democrats blocked regulation in 2004, attacking the regulator, and defeated the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, cosponsored by John McCain. Democrats like Barney Frank cried racism whenever the republicans suggested regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and had control of the house financial services committee which oversees the GSEs.

      "I worry, frankly, that there's a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a
      threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the Federal Government doesn't bail them out . But the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing."

      Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.)
      House Financial Services Committee hearing
      Sept. 10, 2003

      "I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They're not the best investments these days from the long- term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward. They're in a housing market. I do think their prospects going forward are very solid. And in fact, we're going to do some things that are going to improve them."

      Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.)
      July 14, 2008

      "I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

      I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."

      John McCain
      May 26, 2006

      Here are some additional quotes from the Fannie/Freddie Fraud Investigation in 2004

      BAKER (R-LA): It is indeed a very troubling report, but it is a report of extraordinary importance not only to those who wish to own a home, but as to the taxpayers of this country who would pay the cost of the clean up of an enterprise failure.

      WATERS (D-CA): Through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke, Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines.

      MEEKS (D-NY): As well as the fact that I'm just pissed off at OFHEO, because if it wasn't for you, I don't think that we'd be here in the first place, and now the problem that we have and that we're faced with is: maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you've given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the, uh, the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they've done a tremendous job. There's been nothing that was indicated that's wrong, you know, with Fannie Mae! Freddie Mac has come up on its own. And the question that then presents is the competence that -- that -- that -- that your agency uh, uh, with reference to, uh, uh, deciding and regulating these GSEs. Uh, and so, uh, I wish I could sit here and say that I'm not upset with you, but I am very upset because, you know, what you do is give -- you know, maybe giving any reason to, as Mr. Gonzales said, to give someone a heart surgery when they really don't need it.

      ROYCE (R-CA): In addition to our important oversight role in this committee, I hope that we will move swiftly to create a new regulatory structure for Fannie Mae, for Freddie Mac, and the federal home loan banks.

      CLAY (D-MO): This hea

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
    5. Re:Another big corporate handout in the making. by Arcane_Rhino · · Score: 1

      Very appropriate and good response. Wish I had mod points for you.

    6. Re:Another big corporate handout in the making. by pcolaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd mod you if I had the points, but this will have to do. I have found it hilarious how many people blame Bush for the problems with our economy (blame him for the mistakes in Iraq, that's legit) when in fact the Democrats, going all the way back to Clinton, are the ones who have put us in this mess.

      I will blame the Republican majority in the House and Senate in the 90's and early this decade for not doing something about it, although admittedly they did try a few times to fix it (McCain among others). However, apparently they didn't try hard enough. People talk of wanting Bush to get tried for war crimes, but in my opinion it's people like Barnie Frank who should be impeached or recalled for willful disregard when it comes to oversight of the housing market, chiefly as it concerns Fannie and Freddie.

      It has been made crystal clear that the stimulus package, while having saved the credit industry from collapse, did little good other than to keep the majority of major banks from folding. Lending has not increased but instead continues to retract, and there is no evidence that supports the big three auto makers avoiding collapse as well (other than possibly Ford, assuming their sales recover). The handling of the economy and in particular spending has been an absolute joke over the past 4 years, and while people would love nothing better than to blame Bush, who submits yearly budgets, it is Congress, who approves the budget, who should really be at the forefront of blame. Republicans lost their mandate due to the handling of the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, most voters are too dumb to realize that the other party, the Democrats, were as clueless on the housing and credit crisis as the Republicans were on fighting a lengthy conflict in the middle east. If we only had more people who cared about the economy and the government's incompetency in managing it's duties, both parties would've been ejected from office and we'd have gotten a few more forward lookers in Washington. Too bad that'll never happen in my lifetime.

      How ironic is it that Iraq eventually turned around, whereas we're just beginning to really see the seams crack in our economy?

    7. Re:Another big corporate handout in the making. by pcolaman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think patenting work done with public money is okay, as long as, like you said, the patent is licensed freely. This protects the work of the scientists, doctors, etc, as it pertains to credit for their work, but at the same time doesn't allow them to derive obscene profits off of public money.

    8. Re:Another big corporate handout in the making. by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      I get demonizes when people find out that I supported the stem cell ban for public money for those very same reasons.

      We through millions and more every year at medical research with public funds and the cure you need still costs more then you can afford because they do this. I'm convinced if all research that used public money was open and free, we would have affordable healthcare and wouldn't need to throw it around every 4 years.

    9. Re:Another big corporate handout in the making. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Preach it brother.

    10. Re:Another big corporate handout in the making. by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Thank you, jcnnghm. Excellent post. It's hard to refute facts such as these.

      It's hilarious when people blame this on the "unregulated market", when the exact opposite is true. This was caused by government meddling in the private sector. It was not a problem caused by "a lack of oversight". This was caused by insanely stupid policies that were almost guaranteed to be a financial train wreck in the long term. And no, this was not unforeseen by everyone. Plenty of people were plenty worried about this issue. But the people who were trying to prevent this mess happen to belong to a currently unpopular political party now mostly out of power.

      Of course, you know that Barney Frank and his cohorts are pretty much untouchable at this point. I'm certainly not expecting any one of them to pay any sort of political price for this. But damn, at the very least, we DO need to see criminal investigations of the fraud going on at Fanny and Freddy. Tell me, why the blistering reactions to what Enron did, but not a peep about these guys running these institutions into the ground? I'll have a much better opinion of Obama if he actually sics the Justice department on these guys.

      Good times, good times...

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    11. Re:Another big corporate handout in the making. by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      1. While the Democrats certainly encouraged affordable housing, no bank was required to make loans that placed it in financial risk. Many regional banks and all credit unions are coming through this unscathed because they maintained financial propriety. Nor does any of this explain the practice of issuing undocumented loans or interest only loans. These practices were simply a matter of pandering to speculators.

      2. NONE of this explains the MBS and CDS fiasco which is what dragged down investment banks like Lehman and Merrill Lynch. Nor the looming disaster of the derivatives market. These problems are clearly due to failed regulatory institutions.

      3. If the government regulators were doing their jobs where were they when Bernie Madoff was running the biggest Ponzi scheme in history?

      4. Where were the financial checks on the acquisition of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America? BofA was on sound footing until they were encouraged to buy Merrill, and now they are being dragged into insolvency.

      5. Then there is the question of what the regulatory agencies were doing in the 7 years of 2001 to 2007 when Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were engaging in questionable loan practices. It was not merely a matter of Raines; he was responsible for Freddie Mac only. BOTH companies failed.

      6. Democrats were not the majority party in Congress in 2003-2004. Any legislation or regulatory activities during that period of time could not possibly have been blocked by them. Any claims otherwise are ludicrous.

      7. During the Bush administration the leverage of many large financial institutions increased from a factor of 10 to a factor of 20. This coupled with increased default rates was and still is a key factor in this debacle. There is no way any responsible regulation of a financial system should permit this level of leverage.

      From Wikipedia:

      A 2004 SEC ruling allowed USA investment banks to issue substantially more debt, which was then used to purchase MBS. Over 2004-07, the top five US investment banks each significantly increased their financial leverage (see diagram), which increased their vulnerability to the declining value of MBSs. These five institutions reported over $4.1 trillion in debt for fiscal year 2007, about 30% of USA nominal GDP for 2007. Further, the percentage of subprime mortgages originated to total originations increased from below 10% in 2001-2003 to between 18-20% from 2004-2006, due in-part to financing from investment banks.

      8. Bush was President of the Unitied States for the past 8 years, and the Republican party had majorities in the House and Senate for 6 out of the last 8 years. They did NOTHING.

      This graph from Wikipedia illustrates the explosion in fraud in the system during the past 8 years.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mortgage_loan_fraud.svg

      MBS credit rating downgrades coming home to roost:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MBS_Downgrades_Chart.png

      President George W. Bush stated in September 2008: "Once this crisis is resolved, there will be time to update our financial regulatory structures. Our 21st century global economy remains regulated largely by outdated 20th century laws."[97] The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has conceded that self-regulation of investment banks contributed to the crisis.[98][99]

      Locking the barn door after the horses have left? Clearly so.

  7. More funding? by feepness · · Score: 1

    many scientists believe federal funding will soon become available for embryonic stem cell research on new cell lines, resulting in additional similar studies.

    Sounds great, but, ummm, aren't we already broke?

    1. Re:More funding? by joggle · · Score: 1

      Up to now this company has been funding the research privately. This merely allows them to proceed to human trials, it doesn't give them federal funding to do so.

    2. Re:More funding? by feepness · · Score: 1

      That may be true, but that's not what I was quoting.

    3. Re:More funding? by Icegryphon · · Score: 0

      That is why we need change, Cause damn we are broke and can use every quarter, nickle, and dime we can get. All we can do is hope that someone will give us this change so that science will bring us hope in the future of change. --just see how many times you can use the words hope and change in a sentence.

    4. Re:More funding? by joggle · · Score: 1

      Oh, missed the quote. I would presume that they will try to transfer existing funds for current stem cell research to new programs whenever possible. Current stem cell research only funds programs using the old embryonic stem cell lines and other non-embryonic stem cells (like mutants formed from skin cells).

      I would expect an increase in funding too, but it probably would be rather small compared to the spending on infrastructure and other programs.

    5. Re:More funding? by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      Not if China has anything to say about it!

  8. Note the distinction by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

    It seems many people don't notice that "embryonic stem cell research" is different from "stem cell research." Research has been done on cures involving adult stem cells (e.g., the patients' own) already. I believe this particular ban was on embryonic stem cell research, presumably for abortion/anti-abortion reasons.

    Whether or not you agree or disagree with the use of human embryos in this example, there is a distinction that needs to be realized. Adult stem cell research has been going on, IIRC, and has had success already, but people rarely talk about it. Most people, if asked whether or not "stem cell research" was legal, automatically seem to think about embryonic stem cell research and say "no." There seems to be a lack of enthusiasm for it, even though it's been proven to help.

    On a more political note, IMO, it is strange for someone to support the usage of human embryos when he refuses to answer when he thinks human life begins? In that case, he is not sure that these human embryos are NOT "real humans," which is an interesting ethical/moral position to be in)

    1. Re:Note the distinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Refusing to answer is not the same thing as being not sure.

    2. Re:Note the distinction by halivar · · Score: 1

      Embryonic stem cell research is legal, and always has been.

    3. Re:Note the distinction by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but is not refusing to not answer not the same thing as not being not sure?

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    4. Re:Note the distinction by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'll bite. I believe that human life begins with human consciousness and thought. Since a blastocyst consists of less than 100 undifferentiated cells I don't believe that it is possible for it to meet my definition of human life.

    5. Re:Note the distinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Giving an answer might not represent how he really feels, although we can suppose that it would. Not answering could just as well mean that he doesn't want to make his personal opinion public for whatever reason.

    6. Re:Note the distinction by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      That wasn't the point though. The point isn't what we think; the point is what the people think that are making it legal/supporting it. It seems to be an unstable moral/ethical position if you aren't sure if it's a human life but willing to use them anyways

    7. Re:Note the distinction by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      I believe that human life begins with human consciousness and thought.

      I've met people with driver's licenses that don't meet that definition (before and after drinking). On the other hand, should I even need a kidney, it's a definition I might just like.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    8. Re:Note the distinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you although that isn't the important question with the way the laws are now.

      Currently embryos are produced for couples that have a hard time getting pregnant. The question resolves around what we should do with these. Throw them away or allow them to be used for research.

      I would argue that using them for research is better than discarding them. I propose that it should be illegal to make extra embryos when helping a couple have a child. That would prevent embryos from being used for research AND being discarded.

      But I do think embryos should be used for research but we shouldn't make them just for research. So I would be against making a law to limit embryo creations for new babies.

      I can understand why people don't want them to be used for research but I don't understand how its any worse than discarding them. I know people say "playing god" but I don't think that is a reasonable answer considering we are already "playing god" by artificial insemination.

      Basically I think researching unused embryos is better than discarding them.

    9. Re:Note the distinction by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'll bite. I believe that human life begins with human consciousness and thought. Since a blastocyst consists of less than 100 undifferentiated cells I don't believe that it is possible for it to meet my definition of human life.

      So you believe human life == consciousness AND thought?

      Therefore when you fall asleep you cease to meet your definition of human life?
      Tell me, how healthy are your liver and kidneys? What time do you usually nap?

      Seriously, while I'm obviously being facetious here, this does go to the heart of the problem of defining human life.

      Your attempt to characterize 'personhood' as requiring consciousness or thought is popular but inadequate as it excludes things like people in a coma, people in suspended animation, people undergoing certain types of surgery.

      And blastocyst has pretty good odds of achieving consciousness, even if its not their yet. Is really just to terminate it seconds before it wakes up? Minutes? ... exactly how far before its ready to awaken is ok? And what makes that point in time special, but another point in time a few minutes later not ok?

      For what its worth, I'm generally on your side. I agree there is a time between conception and birth where one shouldn't be a legal person, and that a blastocyst falls within that time frame; but I can't pin exactly when it ends, and person hood is achieved.

    10. Re:Note the distinction by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      If he had answered, it's doubtful he would've been elected. Whether you personally agree or disagree with abortions and the use of embryonic stem cells for research, the majority of the country does not, and this spans all ethnic groups. Obama was pretty clever at picking and choosing which questions to avoid in order to maintain his momentum.

    11. Re:Note the distinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But there are so many different articles of faith you can't completely disprove, yet adopting them would give us a very bizarre morality.

      Is that ant the reincarnation of George Washington? Can we morally kill ants if we're not sure whether they contain human souls? Should we be cautious and ban all insecticides?

      The most reasonable thing to say is that we don't have any reason to believe that insects and embryos have human rights, and that it doesn't make sense to grant them rights at the expense of our personal freedoms. We're nearly all willing to take the risk that the fly we just swatted was dear old granny. Likewise, the embryonic stem cells we use may be living human individuals. I know I won't be losing any sleep over either possibility.

    12. Re:Note the distinction by cparker15 · · Score: 1

      So, in other words, it's not alive... yet. Isn't preventing a life from continuing to develop the same as ending it, albeit prematurely?

      I'm not saying I disagree with you--I don't. However, I also don't advocate ignoring the fact that a blastocyst is a beginning stage of something that will soon be conscious.

      --
      Have you driven a fnord... lately?

      You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.

    13. Re:Note the distinction by zach297 · · Score: 1

      "I believe that human life begins with human consciousness and thought."
      1. "So you believe human life == consciousness AND thought?"
      He specifically says *begins* with human thought. It does not *end* with human thought as you infer from his post.
      2. "Therefore when you fall asleep you cease to meet your definition of human life?"
      You dream while sleeping. Therefore you are conscious while sleeping.

    14. Re:Note the distinction by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Isn't preventing a life from continuing to develop the same as ending it, albeit prematurely?

      So you're saying condoms are the tools of the Devil?

    15. Re:Note the distinction by vux984 · · Score: 1

      He specifically says *begins* with human thought. It does not *end* with human thought as you infer from his post.

      1) Its a pretty reasonable inference.

      2) What happens if someone is born with with any number of brain disorders that prevents them from achieving consciousness. What is that? A living organ factory? If my heart is weak, can I do a little genetic manipulation to ensure my next child has one of these disorders, raise it, and harvest its organs when matured?

      3) What do you see as the difference between someone who is born in a coma and someone who falls into one later in life after having been conscious?

      You dream while sleeping. Therefore you are conscious while sleeping.

      Given we have a term "lucid dreaming" specifically to differentiate between conscious dreaming and unconscious dreaming I'll beg to differ.

      In any case, there is a great deal of time spent asleep where you are not dreaming too, and I'm pretty sure most people would agree that if you fall asleep you are generally unconscious. Its even a legal defense -- a crime committed while sleepwalking for example is excusable, because you were unconscious.

    16. Re:Note the distinction by n6kuy · · Score: 1

      That's kind of a faith-based, arbitrary definition of the beginning human life, isn't it?
      Let's be scientists here.

      Lots of things are alive that don't have consciousness and thought.

      --
      If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
    17. Re:Note the distinction by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      Since a blastocyst consists of less than 100 undifferentiated cells I don't believe that it is possible for it to meet my definition of human life.
      It consumes nutrients, excretes wastes, grows, ... it's obviously alive. And it isn't a bacterium or a sheep - it's quite clearly a human stage in an early stage of human development.

      I believe that human life begins with human consciousness and thought.
      I think human life begins to have moral value when it develops human consciousness and thought - I still think it was a human life before that.

  9. Shame by mark72005 · · Score: 1

    It's a shame this became political, because the fact is that stem cells from sources that don't require the destruction of life have not been adequately studied, and actually HAVE produced successful treatments.

    But, if the government slush funds are all going to be pointed at this for political reasons, I guess the embryo-farming will soon begin.

    1. Re:Shame by Hatta · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No one is forcing anyone to stop researching promising treatments based on adult stem cells. Adult stem cells are good at some things, and they have produced successful treatments. Since we've produced successful treatments with adult stem cells, it stands to reason that we can also produce successful treatments with embryonic stem cells. It would be wrong of us to ignore those treatments and allow people to suffer unnecessarily.

      Let me also mention that ALL stem cell research requires the destruction of life. A stem cell, whether embryonic or adult, is alive.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Shame by pcolaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let me also mention that ALL stem cell research requires the destruction of life. A stem cell, whether embryonic or adult, is alive.

      You are twisting the debate of the use of embryonic stem cells. It has nothing to do with objections over the destruction of the stem cells, it is how they are derived. All cells derived from humans are alive at some point, but the objection from many over using embryonic stem cells for research is the fact that they come from aborted people. As far as I'm concerned, that's what they are once they have a heartbeat. That fetus is then no longer just a fetus, but a human being. The debate to whether abortion is morally right is another argument for another time, but don't make this into an argument of whether using embryonic or adult stem cells are the same thing, because they are not. An adult willingly allows the use of their stem cells for research, whereas an unborn infant cannot make that decision.

    3. Re:Shame by Hatta · · Score: 1

      You are twisting the debate of the use of embryonic stem cells

      No, it's the people who use the term "life begins at conception" who twist the definition of the word life. We have to remember that there's many different types of life, it's a continuum, not binary. Some life has rights, some doesn't.

      As far as I'm concerned, that's what they are once they have a heartbeat. That fetus is then no longer just a fetus, but a human being.

      Lots of things have heartbeats and we kill them with no qualms. What's special about the heartbeat of the fetus? (also, we're ignoring the fact that embryonic stem cells come from embryos not fetuses)

      don't make this into an argument of whether using embryonic or adult stem cells are the same thing, because they are not.

      No, it's not the same thing. Which is why it's vitally important that we research BOTH adult and embryonic stem cells.

      An adult willingly allows the use of their stem cells for research, whereas an unborn infant cannot make that decision.

      Neither can a mouse, are we supposed to stop all mouse research now? I'd argue that a mouse is far more worthy of consideration and empathy, since they have a fully developed nervous system, can experience pain, etc. An embryo is just a lump of cells.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  10. Way to change the wording! by cosmicaug · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nice, how the wording got changed so that it says the opposite of what is conveyed by the CNN article!

    Slashdot article says:

    The stem cells come from the existing lines Pres. Bush approved federal funding for in August 2001.

    The source article actually states:

    The tests will use stem cells cultured from embryos left over in fertility clinics, which otherwise would have been discarded.

    And thus:

    Okarma said Geron did not use any federal funding for its research, and that the Bush restrictions had "devastated the field."

    1. Re:Way to change the wording! by Obama · · Score: 0

      0karma, that's about what this account is netting me...

    2. Re:Way to change the wording! by BaronHethorSamedi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Uhhh...maybe RTFA a bit more carefully? Cut and pasted from CNN:

      The Food and Drug Administration has approved the trials, which will use human stem cells authorized for research by then-President George W. Bush in 2001.

      Don't get me wrong--if you want mud to sling at the now-defunct Bush administration, the article provides plenty, but don't read selectively and accuse the editors of twisting words.

    3. Re:Way to change the wording! by philspear · · Score: 1

      I also liked the wording here

      The first human embryonic stem cells were developed by Jamie Thomson at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1998.

      It's true, the first human embryonic stem cells were made by Dr. Thomspon in 1998. Hard times for those of us born before 1998. We had to grow using animal embryonic stem cells. That's no way to make yourself.
      ... at least I thought it was funny.

    4. Re:Way to change the wording! by x_IamSpartacus_x · · Score: 1
      From the article:

      The tests could begin by summer, said Dr. Thomas Okarma, president and CEO of the Geron Corporation. The Food and Drug Administration has approved the trials, which will use human stem cells authorized for research by then-President George W. Bush in 2001

      So the stem cells that will be used were definitely approved by Bush.

      Okarma didn't use federal funding for his research but the quote you have from the /. summary is... get this... STRAIGHT FROM TFA! Read it yourself. 1st sentence 10th paragraph.

      I am not a huge fan of Bush either but snipping bits and pieces from the article and then blatantly lying about it to make Bush look worse than he is is why neo-cons can demonize people like you.

    5. Re:Way to change the wording! by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      Jamie Thompson jumped into a time machine after making the stem cells, and traveled back to prehistoric times in order to establish the human race. I guess this answers the chicken versus the egg argument.

    6. Re:Way to change the wording! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Id that like him being his own grandfather?

  11. uh huh.. by ForeverOrangeCat · · Score: 1

    And about damn time.

  12. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No you couldn't, you will just have to keep getting your penis the old way, in your ass.

  13. Non-Story by tobiah · · Score: 1

    The embryonic stem cell research ban was just on FEDERAL funding of such research when using non-approved embryonic stem cell lines. This story is about privately funded research using approved stem cell lines, and so doesn't conflict with the Bush administration ban, or have anything to do with the change in administrations.
        So ya, it's a cheap shot.

    --
    "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
  14. Speaking as a pro-life person here by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    Why didn't the scientific community just buy access to the stem cells found in the amniotic sacs of the millions of live births that take place every year? You can't seriously argue that aborted tissue samples are needed when there is no shortage of women or hospitals that would be willing to sell the amniotic fluid from a healthy birth for scientific research.

    I have never understood the controversy here since there are plenty of alternatives to taking it from healthy babies, aborted babies, etc.

    1. Re:Speaking as a pro-life person here by jbeaupre · · Score: 3, Informative

      To put it simply, not all stem cells are created equal. It comes down to potency. By the time a baby is born, stem cells have done a lot of differentiating. They can only create a limited number of tissues. Still useful, but not as useful as early embryonic stem cells. For a quick description of the varying utility of stem cells, try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell#Potency_definitions

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    2. Re:Speaking as a pro-life person here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gotta do something with the aborted babies.

    3. Re:Speaking as a pro-life person here by canuck08 · · Score: 0

      You bury them in the ground then they suffer in hell for eternity because they were never baptized.

    4. Re:Speaking as a pro-life person here by GSPride · · Score: 1

      They do, in fact, use umbilical cords, and cord blood to harvest stem cells, for what it's worth.

      --
      Apple has never claimed not to be evil, they're just very stylish about it.
    5. Re:Speaking as a pro-life person here by pcolaman · · Score: 0, Troll

      Because then the bleeding heart liberals wouldn't have anything to complain about, and a complacent liberal is a dead liberal.

    6. Re:Speaking as a pro-life person here by philspear · · Score: 1

      I have never understood the controversy here since there are plenty of alternatives to taking it from healthy babies, aborted babies, etc.

      They don't come from natural conception. ES cells are, from what I've heard, initially harvested from 5-6 day old blastocysts. This is about the time the embryo implants itself into the uterus, about a week before even a pregnancy test would reveal anything. These are by necessity embryos that are in vitro fertilized. Aborted embryos are too old.

    7. Re:Speaking as a pro-life person here by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you are saying that adult stem cells are not as useful to treat health problems as embryonic stem cells? If that is the case, why are there treatments already in use that use adult stem cells, but this is the first clinical trial using embryonic stem cells?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    8. Re:Speaking as a pro-life person here by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the delay answering. Was away for a bit.

      Actually, it's theory that says embryonic could be more useful. The ability to create any cell type without immune markers and create them before someone is sick (mass production). Getting them to differentiate into just the tissue you want does take a bit of work. Ethical / moral reasons have slowed this research. So there are still some unanswered questions.

      For biological and hospital red tape reasons, autologous adult stem cells are the easier to try. Find what you need in the patient, amplify, reinsert. Allogenic adult is the next easiest to get through red tape. Hospitals have been doing organ transplants for decades, so it's no big deal. So both of those are more advanced because they've been tried more.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  15. At last - a rational president by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

    Good to see that you have a president who seems to act on the basis of reality rather than listening to the mumbo jumbo of the religious fantasists. It would be nice if we had something like that in the UK.

    1. Re:At last - a rational president by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Good to see that you have a president who seems to act on the basis of reality rather than listening to the mumbo jumbo of the religious fantasists. It would be nice if we had something like that in the UK.

      You do realize that Obama had zero to do with this story, don't you?
      This study is getting approved now because now is when the people doing the study finished all of the necessary preliminary work to get approval. If they had finished the preliminary work six months sooner, it would have been approved six months sooner.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:At last - a rational president by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      We traded in someone who takes advice from religious advisers for someone who takes advice from the ACLU and MoveOn.Org. I'd call that a sideways move at best.

    3. Re:At last - a rational president by Bruiser80 · · Score: 1

      I thought the original ban of public funding on new lines of embryonic stem cells was a good compromise. It allowed public research to continue, without allowing the government to endorse the further use of new embryos for research.

      It took the usefulness of the research and the moral objections of some of the people into account. I consider that a rational response to a situation.

      --
      Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in the mud. After a while, you realize the engineer enjoys it.
    4. Re:At last - a rational president by gothzilla · · Score: 1

      You're going to screw everything up. Everyone knows that everything good that happens now will be because of Obama, and everything bad that happens will be Bush's fault even if it happens 4 years from now.
      Get with the program dude.

    5. Re:At last - a rational president by n6kuy · · Score: 1

      Right.
      Because #44 will "restore science to its rightful place."

      Which is somewhere above ethics, apparently.

      --
      If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
  16. 400,000 Embryos Available by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Informative

    There are over 400,000 frozen embryos stored in IVF clinics around America that won't be used for pregnancies. Some of them won't be released by the people whose gametes were used to create them, some won't be in a condition usable for science. But there's a lot that could be used for science. They should be, immediately. Actual people with actual diseases are already waiting for the therapies that research will bring, and the line forming behind them lines up forever into the future.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:400,000 Embryos Available by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      Not agreeing or disagreeing with what you said, but isn't it a bit presumptuous to assume that the research will bring the therapies, rather it might be more prudent to assume that the research may bring about therapies.

    2. Re:400,000 Embryos Available by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      The way we do science is to say we're going to bring the therapies, then set about proving we can't. When we fail, we get the engineering and medicine. None of that says we should start by ignoring our reasons to hope we'll produce the therapies.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  17. MODS READ THE ARTICLE. THIS GUY IS WRONG. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you RTFA the article clearly says what this guy says it doesn't.

    1. Re:MODS READ THE ARTICLE. THIS GUY IS WRONG. by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      RTFA? This is slashdot, right? Or did I take a wrong turn somewhere?

  18. the whole stem cell argument will fade away by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    scientists are discovering ways to make adult cells revert to stem cell status

    here's a recent methodology:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090107134633.htm

    in the near future, there will be no need for stem cells, or rather, stem cells will be made from sources no moralist, medical ethicist, or religious dogmatist could possibly object to

    what better way to solve an intransigent divide between science and religion than to make the issue moot?

    now if only someone can come up with a methodology to make evolution look like "the word of god", and we're all good

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  19. wrong by x_IamSpartacus_x · · Score: 1
    HAHA. What are you talkin about man? Everything you said is just tryin to look for a reason to be pissed at Bush. The summary quotes the cnn article and you are just wrong. ROFLCOPTER.

    You are an idiot

  20. Re:Political BS, Waterboy style by mr_mischief · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Bush is the devil!"

    "Everything's the devil to you, Mama!"

  21. Not Radical Enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the objection from many over using embryonic stem cells for research is the fact that they come from aborted people. As far as I'm concerned, that's what they are once they have a heartbeat.

    Then you have no objection to embryonic stem cell research, since embryonic stem cells must be harvested long before they differentiate enough to form a heart.

    I hope I'm making this clear: your views on abortion are simply not radical enough to justify opposition to stem cell research. You would have to believe that full humanity begins promptly at conception - and pray for the holy souls of those zygotes that fail to implant for whatever reason. This is the level of fanaticism that is required to oppose stem cell research.

  22. I, for one, by kkrajewski · · Score: 1

    welcome our stem-cell powered superhuman overlords.

  23. Human cloning by cdrguru · · Score: 1

    Stem cells are genotype specific. That means in order for stem cells to be available for
    YOU that YOUR stem cells (or at least those that are genetically identical to yours) must be
    available.

    For most of the population, any reliance on embryonic stem cells requires a cloned embryo be produced.

    This pretty much opens the door to human cloning, so Bill Gates can live on through a series of
    clones. There is no way this technology could ever be contained to just producing stem cells
    and make sure the embryo was destroyed after harvesting of cells.

  24. Excuse me for a moment, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...isn't it true that embryonic stem cells haven't helped anyone yet but adult stem cells have, and there's no human rights argument over the adult stem cells?

  25. Worms might get there first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    according to this.

  26. the others are worse by r00t · · Score: 2, Informative

    Tylenol can easily destroy your liver. There is a very small difference between the effective dose and the poisonous dose. Add alcohol, and the situation is even worse.

    1. Re:the others are worse by Phortune · · Score: 2, Informative

      Outside of the US, Tylenol is known as paracetamol; one of the metabolic intermediates of which is extremely toxic and since paracetamol is metabolised in the liver, it is there that it accumulates and has its toxic effect. The toxic dose of paracetamol varies among individuals because of the polymorphic nature of the genes for the enzymes involved and because of differing rates of metabolism of this toxic intermediate. That said, the fatal toxic dose for a given individual is fairly high compared to the 500-1000mg (4000mg max. daily) recommended dosage. It would be considerably lower for a developing foetus, however, I am unsure as to how much paracetamol would be able to cross the placental membrane into the foetus' bloodstream; or indeed if the foetus would be able to metabolise the paracetamol (and thus produce the toxic intermediate, NAPQI). Pregnant mothers should know better than to drink more than a small glass of wine, and certainly not in conjunction with any painkiller. Paracetamol is the lesser of many possible evils. I hope this clears matters up?

  27. It took Nixon to go to China, It took the first Af by Iowan41 · · Score: 1

    African-American president to create a race of slaves.