Slashdot Mirror
Obama To Reverse Bush Limits On Stem Cell Work
An anonymous reader sends this quote from the Associated Press:
"Reversing an eight-year-old limit on potentially life-saving science, President Barack Obama plans to lift restrictions Monday on taxpayer-funded research using embryonic stem cells. ... Under President George W. Bush, taxpayer money for that research was limited to a small number of stem cell lines that were created before Aug. 9, 2001, lines that in many cases had some drawbacks that limited their potential usability. But hundreds more of such lines — groups of cells that can continue to propagate in lab dishes — have been created since then, ones that scientists say are healthier, better suited to creating treatments for people rather than doing basic laboratory science. Work didn't stop. Indeed, it advanced enough that this summer, the private Geron Corp. will begin the world's first study of a treatment using human embryonic stem cells, in people who recently suffered a spinal cord injury. Nor does Obama's change fund creation of new lines. But it means that scientists who until now have had to rely on private donations to work with these newer stem cell lines can apply for government money for the research, just like they do for studies of gene therapy or other treatment approaches."
Anti-abortionists are going to have a field day with this. If stem cells can be harvested from aborted fetuses, and stem cells actually fulfill their promise as everyone expects they will, then getting an abortion suddenly becomes not so much the destruction of one life but the preservation of many.
Embryonic stem cells do not come from aborted fetuses, at least not from the traditional type of abortion. Embryonic stem cells come from left over fertilized eggs at fertility clinics that are to be thrown away. These are thawed, encouraged to begin development, then harvested for stem cells, which destroys them.
(I find it ironic that the last time stem cells came up, someone accused pro-lifers of trying to say that stem comes come from abortions)
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Life does not begin at conception, the sperm and egg cells that exists before conception are very much alive themself already. Albeit lacking the ability to divide into anything useful without first combining their genetic materials and finding a generous donor of nutrients and growing space.
As for the eggs, the fertility treatment doesn't work by picking out one egg, fertilizing it, putting it into a female and then seeing if it falls out again or gets stuck. It's more like picking a basket of eggs, fertilizing them all, screening them for defects, picking out the best one(s) and putting them back into the mother. This leaves us with a basket of motherless embryos(or zygotes in the early stages, but still motherless)(which in reality looks something like a basket full of seemingly empty petri dishes, not a pile of screaming dying babies as some would prefer us to belive). Calling them aborted is retarded simply because they aren't.
Oh, and they're only called fetuses after 8 weeks. they're embryos until then. And as they'll be put to the torch either way, why not try to derive something useful from them? If a few human cells lacking a nervous system is of so great importance then the prospect of saving several billions of human cells with a nervous system by providing reconstruction of failed organs and systems should be a national top priority.
I think the life begins at conception idea is just a left over from ancient attempts at science. It uses the same ideas behind "Spontaneous generation", that life comes from inanimate matter.
Under the "Spontaneous generation" theory, life comes from non-living matter under the right conditions. Rain water mixed with mud will generate frogs. Meat left to rot will generate flies. Presence of pre-existing life is not a requirement.
For all the benefit that Aristotle bestowed on mankind, his dabblings in the realm of Science put it back for hundreds of years. He was good at forming logical arguments that were quite reasonable. For science you also have to deeply scrutinize the actual world, something that wasn't as easily available to him at the time. His fame (he is Aristotle) then drove his ideas into the world as "facts"; an error that Aristotle would never have permitted if he were alive at the time.
Louis Pasteur finally proved that Aristotle was completely wrong. The Church pre-exists Pasteur, and most of it's doctrine was written pre-Pasteur. So it's easy to see why strongly religious people believe that life is created at birth. They're completely wrong too, but they're going to be far too busy bickering about when birth occurs to think about Pasteur. The message that they should learn is that life is not created, but preserved through offspring.
In a traditional religious culture, the idea that life is preserved through offspring runs counter to idea of spontaneous generation is a fact. Spontaneous generation is deeply rooted in the Bible, as it would be in any book of it's age. Adam and Eve were never represented as having to develop. Moses's staff turned into a snake. Abraham's son Issac was spared from being sacrificed by a sheep that suddenly appeared entangled in a bush. The entire universe was made, and made quickly. After being raised to accept such examples, it's almost forgivable to think that life is created, but it is still completely wrong; life is a continuum that you pass on to your children.
The whole controversy over the "life beings at conception" is completely religious, and affects only the Abrahamic faiths. In Asia and other parts of the world it is a non-issue.
It's funny that you would mention Asia. Traditionally in East Asian cultures a child was considered to be one year old at birth because they counted the gestation period as the first year of life. Granted this tradition is slowly changing, but is still the norm in some countries. So no, this does not only affect "Abrahamic faiths".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asian_age_reckoning
I bet that there are NO cures for cancer, NO blind man seeing, and NO crippled people walking due to stem cell research, in our lifetimes. All of this talk about the immediate need to fund stem cell research is just so much hype.
[...]
The reason that stem cell research needs federal funding is because THERE ARE NO CURES IN SIGHT FOR ANYTHING FROM THEM.
Actually there are MANY current studies using stem cells, and in particular embryonic stem cells, in promising treatments for a large range of diseases. Some of them are already approved for human trials and therefore will probably see the light in mainstream medicine in very few years.
One example of such applications: restoring locomotion after spinal chord injury, a study that was cleared by the FDA for human trials a little over a month ago.
Dude, if you have no idea what you are talking about, it's better to moderate your own opinions.
If Congress wants to pass Steam Cell Legislation this is sure to pass the Senate. There are 5 Mormon senators (4 Republicans, 1 Democrat) who voted for Embryonic Steam Cell research twice during Bush's presidency.
Orrin Hatch who the RIAA's lap dog, personally appealed to Bush to pass the legislation...I suppose that is about the only thing he is good for...
Basic scientific research is a "public good". You can't get the proper levels of funding by asking the private sector to do it, simply because the bulk of the benefits will be impossible to monetize. Since anyone can use the products of basic research, those who fund it create something that their freeloading competitors can use just as easily as they can. So basic research will always be starved under a private sector regime.
Invoking Hollywood? It's hard for me to believe that you're really pro-choice, since that's nothing but standard Right-wing culture war claptrap. Hollywood is in the business of making movies, not identifying promising avenues for scientific research. This research is going to benefit even the few hardcore pro-lifers who want to see it outlawed, and even the wealthy corporations who would starve the government of funding to shave a few points off their tax burden will be able to use this research to create new lifesaving products. So why shouldn't the burden of funding that research fall on the population as a whole?
My guess is that you're "pro-choice" the way most wackjob libertarians are: you revile abortion as immoral, just not quite as immoral as a government who would dare to ever tell anyone what to do. As soon as you find a way to get the free market to ban abortion, you'll do it.
Finally, if you think that Obama's tiny increases in the marginal rate are going to prevent every American from ever becoming or staying rich (which is what it would take to "kill off the possibility of private funding," you're off your rocker. The rich did very well after Clinton raised taxes. But the poor and the middle class also did very well for themselves, which probably irks you.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
There is nothing in the US Constitution about funding research. Research should be done by private entities that will seek the most likely routes to solve the biggest problems instead of the mostly likely to buy votes.
Hate to break it to you, but GP (LordKazan) did say the following:
(emphasis mine)
His statement only refers to the possibility of survival outside of its host without the aid of (modern) technology. A healthy child carried full term -can- survive once born. Sure, if you then leave them in a trash bin, they're likely to die, but if taken proper care for, it should grow up quite nicely.. whether that be in the care of the biological mother or another person. A child brought into the world after only the first trimester, however, simply stands no chance whatsoever.. not even -with- current technology, I reckon. Ergo, that would not be discrete life.
He also mentions 'until'. So to some of the below replies - no, his statement has no bearing on those who have -already- been quite capable of surviving.
I agree with you that the term 'parasite' can be taken quite broadly (as per another replyer below, one might argue that embryonic stem cell researchers taking government funds are 'parasites' of society), and thus disagree with the use of this term by LordKazan. His main point, however, stands... he believes that life only begins IF and when the child would reasonably be capable of survival and brought into the world, under natural circumstances. It's not what I, personally, believe (I do think that technological advances stretch where the definition of 'life' begins, although I wouldn't go so far as believing that any fertilized egg fits the definition of life if scientists develop an artificial womb at some point; where I would draw the line? No idea.), but I respect what he believes and don't think his opinion deserves being twisted around to fit situations he clearly did not intend for his opinion to be applied to.