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."
"Reversing an eight-year-old limit on potentially life-saving science..." Currently unproven to save even one life, but proven to destroy human embryos.
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.
If Star Trek has taught me anything, it's that neither "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" nor "the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many" provide a solid foundation to base morality upon. It's sad that babies have to die to save lives, and it's sad that lives have to be sacrificed because of unwillingness to kill a baby. However, this dilemma can't be resolved at this level. But this latest policy move certainly gives some ammunition to one side.
Why do they need federal subsidies?
I was told that Bush prohibited all stem-cell science when fetal tissue was involved. The article seems to imply that he only limited federal funding for such science.
Something doesn't add up.
Given the deep moral objection a significant part of the community has to the use of embryonic stem cells, and given that it looks like there have been large advances in the use of adult and other stem cells, why lift the funding ban? I mean, all other things being equal, wouldn't it be better to not wander into a moral gray area?
As I understand it, one of the major points of the ban was to discourage the field from becoming reliant on stem cells that required further destruction of embryos. I might be wrong, but from my understanding great leaps have been doing just that - that adult and other non-destructive forms of stem cell research have been fruitful. If that's the case, I don't understand the point of lifting the ban other than for purely political purposes.
I honestly don't understand how the "destruction of embryos" for medical research is worse than the "destruction of embryos" for IVF. The only difference I can see is that IVF is a procedure that conservatives have done all the time, while medical research is done by the evil liberal scientists.
All this hand-waving over stem cells strikes me as dishonest. The people who call killing embryos for research a tragedy have no problem letting them die en masse in other circumstances. For example, why aren't they pushing for medical technology to save every last fertilized ovum? I guess life isn't as important as scoring political points.
We salute you!!!
For those about to rock!V
We salute you tooV
It is always interesting to see what training a non-scientist like Obama really has. One way is to examine his background. Let's take a look at Obama's rich African heritage.
Not even a dozen posts in we already have shitheads bemoaning that 'babies die' when these cells are harvested.
1. According to the Department of Bioethics, anywhere between sixty to eighty percent of fertilized eggs fail to attach to the uterus naturally.
2. Though a precursor to a fully formed human being, these little balls of cells have neither brains nor senses. They have no qualia, no conscious phenomena. They are at most minuscule fragments of tissue - kind of like the smears most of you leave on the sheets at night.
3. If the cells that precede the formation of a human being that will never grow to become even a fetus, much less a fully formed infant, can be used to save lives that exist today, why not? A human that will never be is effectively dead.
4. All of these things can be taken into consideration without devaluing conscious human life, because conscious human life this is not.
We're not giving permission to Anton LaVey to tear the fetuses of misbegotten children from the rancid wombs of unwed women of color while Marilyn Manson and 50 Cent plays over the back alley abortion clinic's P.A. system, you stupid fucking hicks. If you believe that human life begins 'when the sperm hits the germ' then every mother that has attempted to get pregnant and failed repeatedly could very probably be guilty of negligent homicide because of point number one.
And besides, we can get plenty of cells from elsewhere so the debate is now largely moot save for those few situations where adult cells may not suffice.
This is great news. The puritanical and backwards thinking of the W years has hurt America while other countries not hindered by superstition have moved ahead to become leaders in this field.
No wonder America has lost it's edge.Maybe we can get back to the godless heathen science that made us so great.
Now I can eat all the food I want until I blow my heart out and then they can just inject me with some of this fetus crap and I will be well again. And hey obama wants to make all this free of charge. Joy Joy Joy
So this "imaginary friend" is the only reason you might want to refrain from killing ?
Nice to hear a few atheists finally admit it.
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.
After all, if stem cells are so great, and the cures so close, then why cannot the private sector have funded this research? If there were real products in stem cells, I would think somebody would have invested in them, as the benefits are so self evident to the potential consumer that they could recover nearly any cost of development. Stem cell research might be interesting basic science, that's all it is. The hype is ridiculous.
The reason that stem cell research needs federal funding is because THERE ARE NO CURES IN SIGHT FOR ANYTHING FROM THEM.
This is my sig.
Why is this on Slashdot - "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters." ?
Move it to The Huffington Post dipshits!
The fact of the matter is, if stem cells and science were going to be so great for the American taxpayer, then why cannot they just sell the products produced by it?
Bottom line is, there's no hope in stem cells. There's no cures in sight for any disease. If there was, then, there would be a private investor making stuff with stem cells, and Bush never blocked that. But you see, there's no hope in stem cell research, which is why, the government is stepping into to pay for it.
You want to know what made this country great? It's scientists and inventors making USEFUL discoveries, and USEFUL products. Pile stem cell researchers onto the other pool of scientists doing nothing economically useful, sucking at the federal tit. Some crackhead on government cheese is as much economically useful as a scientist taking federal money. It's all just welfare for people that don't want to produce.
But I'll ask you this. If you think I'm wrong, then please tell me how. Tell the date when stem cell research will cure ANY of the diseases it has been claimed to cure. Tell me when stem cell research will cure alzheimers, or paralysis, or parkinsons, or cancer. What's the date that's going to happen by? Just give me a date that you can guarantee success by.
This is my sig.
You and the rest of your kind take blind comfort in the belief that we are monsters, that you could never do what we did. The key ingredient in the anti-agathic cannot be synthesized. It must be taken from living beings. For one to live forever, another one must die. You will fall upon one another like wolves. It will make what we did pale by comparison. The billions who live forever will be a testimony to my work. And the billions who are murdered to buy that immortality will be the continuance of my work. Not like us? You will become us.
- Jha'dur, aka Deathwalker
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,
Because the State of California is giving out private donations?
I was kind of pissed at Bush for blocking federal funding on new lines until I really thought about it for awhile. There's nothing that precludes researchers from doing research on new lines.
If people wanted this so bad, what prevented them from pulling out their checkbooks? Hello, there, Silicon Valley. There's lots of rich people there. How about a donation? You, too, Hollywood, if this is such a big issue.
As to why Obama's doing it, well, two reasons. First, it satisfies a niche constituency, who like to see abortion-related topics pressed to the forefront at every opportunity. Second, his tax plan does probably kill off the possibility of private funding.
(I'm pro-choice, BTW. But to look past Obama's shallow political motives, and to ignore the reality of the situation while Bush was president is very foolish.)
This is not a question of morality it is a question of the proper role of government.
If it's okay for the federal government to fund stem cell research then it's also okay for the government to be giving away billions of dollars to various failed banks; giving billions to artists to create works; spending billions on space research; spending billions on casinos; etc..
It's odd to see that people approve of government dollars (viz. our money - because the government really doesn't have any money) when it's something they want but disapprove of the spending when it's not something interesting to them. People never stop to think that the abuse of government to take money from people and use it to fund some special project that's favored by some group is simply a broken idea:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."
--Alexander Tyler
Let's consider this quote from the summary:
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 . . ..
So why were the private donations so bad? That's exactly how it should operate: people that want the research are paying for it. Why do we laud Scaled Composites, Armadillo Aerospace and others? Because they are privately funding and building business plans for productive, private space exploration rather than improper use and wasteful spending of federal dollars as practiced by NASA.
Let those that want things privately fund and develop productive business plans for stem cell research, space exploration, arts, etc. - not the general public voting for cake and circuses out of other peoples pockets. In economic times like these it should be most obvious that the federal government shouldn't be frivolously spending our money.
Sperm cells and egg cells are demonstrably alive and demonstrably human -- they contain human DNA (although they're short half their chromosomes).
A woman kills a potential future baby with every period. A man kills millions of them with every wet dream, to say nothing of, uh, other activities. In fact, a man kills millions of them even when he DOES make a baby with one of them.
These protesters really are pathetic. How much energy do they put into stopping the mass murder of actual, real, not potential, human beings in Darfur or the Congo, I'd like to know?
I piss off bigots.
Just remember any anti aging effects are purely temporary...
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
If life begins at conception, then even the harvesting of zygotic embryos is antithetical for anti-abortionists.
How can a pregnancy be aborted if there is no pregnancy at all?
"Abortion" in this context doesn't necessarily mean that a pregnancy is aborted but that the life of a conceived but unborn child is aborted.
I think it's time for religious people and atheists to start to mutually respect each others views in this country.
So to that end - I promise not to use any stem cells from the families of any religious people who object to this practice. I also promise not to use any of the knowledge gained from this research to cure the families of these same people of any diseases or injuries.
In return, the religious can respect MY views, and stop worrying about families of people who do not subscribe to their particular morality. We can take care of our own families without their intervention.
What's the reason behind the tag thegreatpretender?
Excuse me for injecting some reality here, but what other countries "moved ahead to become leaders in this field", and what evidence do you have for that?
I thought so. You don't have any. You just pulled that out of your ass.
I just DESTROYED and utterlly destroyed you. Moderators, please mod that this nonsense comment -1 Troll.
Anti-Abortion arguments aside, we are given the knowledge either thru nature (or God if you like), to use stem cells to find solutions to problems. We should use them if they are available. If research discovers another cell from elsewhere, we should use them too.
When I die, if my brain helps solve some problem, go for it.
If cutting my penis off helps, go for it.
I don't need them anymore, after I die.
because it forced researchers to find other viable sources of stem cells. Several studies have noted that embryonic stem cells have a high incidence of becoming cancerous. Stem cells from other sources have a lower incidence.
Obama To Reverse Bush Limits On Maximum Size of Federal Government
Seriously, I thought Bush was awful, but Obama is making Bush look like a small government president! I've never seen anything quite like this.
I don't really care to wade into the abortion-debate muck, particularly as abortion has nothing to do with the stem cells we're talking about. Those are obtained from fertility clinics, and created by people who are SO "pro-life" that they leave plenty of discarded excess life behind in the freezer.
However, what frustrates me to a greater degree is this myth that stem cell research has been "restricted". 90+ percent of people on the street (and probably even a majority of Slashdot posters here) mistakenly believe that the evil Bush administration "banned" or "outlawed" stem cell research. That's simply not true. The last administration refused to SUBSIDIZE it, and that's all. Researchers have been under no restriction whatsoever to do any of this research, as long as they're not sucking off the taxpayer teat for their funds.
This opens up an entirely separate debate on private sources of medical research funds, and why pharmaceutical companies now pay more in marketing than they do in R&D. I'll leave that debate to others. However, are we REALLY so drunk on "stimulus" spending for everything under the sun these days, that refusing to subsidize a particular item means that item is actively "restricted"?
Adult stem cell research is only at a nascent stage though, primarily because you had biomedical researchers acting like children in the US and elsewhere that banned embryonic stem cell research. Some went abroad but many railed against the "substitute" stem cells claiming for purposes of research or therapy they were inferior or even worthless and refused to work on adult stem cell research out of "principle". Adult stem cells can in fact be manipulated to acting like embryonic stem cells and in fact offer a far more likely therapeutic target since they can be derived from the person receiving treatment. There are now some emerging theories that tie the malfunction of adult (somatic) stem cells to things like cancer, type II diabetes and even some muscular degenerative diseases. These are the sort of things that we can realistically solve with stem cell research and it does not matter which kind, so why would they use embryonic stem cells? To us pro-lifers out there on the left this is a further dehumanization of human life and is inexcusable on both scientific and moral grounds. No embryonic stem cell research has ever produced a viable therapy but adult stem cells have.
Shame on Barack Obama for being morally indifferent to human life and scientifically illiterate on this issue.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
How do you even dare to call them "pro-lifers"? They are murderers guilty of effectively killing anyone who could be saved by methods derived from this kind of research. Stopping fertility clinics isn't "pro-life" either, it's about nothing but banning person A from doing things disliked by person B's religion.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
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...
Seriously, all this comes down to is politics. He gains votes from his party folks come election time since he lifted a ban placed by someone who did so to gain votes from HIS party folks at election time. There's no morality here and more significantly there will be zero progress since every fund-raising organization will continue with the perpetual tag line, "we're very close to a cure for and many researchers believe we'll see a cure in our lifetimes... so please give generously".
Obama 1, Slashdot 0
he's got you by the balls america. he's wasting what little resources you have left. it almost seems to be his plan to get things to fail so bad that whomever can just take what they want. he needs to be thrown out of office for being a simple sack of crap.
I travel in Republican/conservative circles and would be shocked to see a poll that corroborates what you said. The death penalty is generally supported as is IVF. The only people that are against IVF, abortion, and the death penalty are "seamless garment of life" Catholics who are small in number but very vocal.
Why will these never grow to become a fetus or a fully formed infant? Because their lives are cut off. I don't know where you get the 80% figure for zygotes failing to implant- the research I've seen quotes something in the range of 1/3 or so- but even granting your figure, the fact that some fertilized embryos die naturally doesn't provide any justification for killing them by the boatload for research which, despite all the messianic talk from Democratic politicians looking to make political hay since 2001, hasn't shown that using embryonic cells rather than adult cells will result in major cures.
So the only human life that matters is conscious human life? The next time you fall asleep it's time to harvest your organs.
If that's so, why the profane attacks on those who think we ought to tread carefully in using embryonic cells?
Literally.
Short answer:
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.
Stem Cell Technology is ONLY a stepping stone on the path to Patient Care. I see a time when Moralists will really start screaming when they really do see Pigs, with Wings, Fly. Mutagens have already begun to be created. The day is coming when if you have a body flaw, an injection of a mutagen will Only upgrade the flaw, and quietly allow itself to be dissolved and digested.
Take THAT Jesus!
light in mainstream medicine in very few years.
Then, let's have a date. When cured? Give me a deadline that you think it will happen.
Dude, if you have no idea what you are talking about, it's better to moderate your own opinions.
If you know what you are talking about so much, then let's have a date. It's such a simple thing, three numbers, two slashes. Out with it.
This is my sig.
Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment.
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
First of all, it's really pretty obvious the benefit for stem cells: Nerves don't regenerate. That means that there is a real potential to fix anything caused by damaged nerves (paralysis, etc) with stem cells, by making them into nerve cells.
Then let's have a date then. But it isn't a date. All you have is -potential-. There's helium 3 on the moon too, and so there's -potential- to have loads of unlimited fuel for nuclear fusion.
It's hard enough to get a drug that does what we want when we know what we're doing. With stem cells, the cures are too far away (but not a lifetime!) that there's no reason to invest in it.
That's essentially my point. The cures ARE far away, and in terms of complexity, are probably a lot farther away than nuclear fusion is. Nuclear fusion is a very simple problem made difficulty by the scale of what needs to be done. Understanding a cell completely and being able to custom grow stuff..
I mean, let's say they do learn how to manipulate embryonic cells into doing what they want. There's still the whole spotty set of problems of how do you solve tissue rejection. I mean, last time I checked, if you go and shove tissue from one organism into another, it's bad news. So, before stem cells can even accomplish anything, you have to solve our entire immune system. In the case of paralysis, what are they hoping, that sticking a bunch of stem cells in a body will cause them to connect? What if stem cells in a spine, after you solve the rejection problem, don't connect to the new ones. What if you have to do something to the existing cells to make them want to connect. What if all you get when you connect is an entirely scrambled set of signals. I mean, if I cut an old copper phone trunk cable in half and just solder the wires back together randomly, all the people are going to be talking to the wrong people. Why would it be any different?
The bottom line is, I've put a few problems, each of which is a monster that could take decades to solve in its own right. What do we have in tissue rejection? I mean, we can't even get BLOOD to be compatible, and you're going to suddenly fire up random material from other humans.
Come on people, this whole stem thing is just a bunch of hype. If stem cells were so ready to apply, we'd have no bacteriological illness, no viral infections, because we'd understand our immune system perfectly. But we're losing THAT war... and you are going to hold up the hope of curing every other disease magically on top of all of that.
It could take a -century- to get there.
This is my sig.
Contrary to the AP's deceptive headline and mis-understanding or mis-reporting of the recent history of stem cell research, Obama is actually reversing the Clinton ban on federal funding of stem cell research. George Bush removed the ban on federal funding of stem cell research for a limited number of cell lines. It was Clinton, not Bush, that banned federal funding of all stem cell research. Clinton. I realize that many people believe that if you just repeat a lie often enough it is as good as the truth, but this is supposed to be a skeptical readership. Want to believe Bush is evil? Fine. There are many things you can say to make that point that are true. This is not one fo them. Bill Clinton banned federal funding of stem cell research, not George Bush.
Here is my personal list of reasons against embryonic stem cell research:
Ignoring the moral issues, I strongly oppose a solution that will cost more money. Taking notice of the moral issues, I see no sense in taking the more difficult (moral) and costly ($$$) course to achieve the same results.
Either way, making a treatment more expensive really does not help keep health care costs down and more easily available to people.
See how stupid that sounded? .... any practical results.
Actually, your history is completely wrong and so is your emphasis on his equations as a foundation. This is -one- of the egoisms of science that frankly do not mesh with historical fact.
Everyone says that Maxwell came up with electromagnetism, but the thing is, the electromagnet had been invented decades before Maxwell was -even born-. Indeed, products that relied on electromagnetism were already evident. The telegraph was invented quite long before.
All Maxwell did was put an elegant wrapper around something that everyone had been working on already. Had Maxwell not been born, it is very likely that pieces of his equation would have been deduced empirically as needed to fit the market needs of the time.
Thus, WITHOUT maxwell, we still wind up getting public lighting, electric cars, computers, etc, just that, the needs of improving each of those things come about through empirical research.
This is my sig.
Probably because the people in the private sector
So, I'd bet the reason we don't have nuclear fusion is because the people in government don't ever actually want to build a working reactor because they will lose their grant money.
See how easy conspiracies go?
This is my sig.
The Democratic constituents are happy to give up their unborn to the good cause of this failed administration.
Give me a date when Windows will be stable and usable. Give me a date when Linux will be ready for the desktop. Give me a date when MySQL will have a storage engine that is both fast AND reliable.
Quite easily done. Windows is stable and usable for a lot of people. Linux is ready for the desktop now, for a lot of people, and MySQL has a storage engine that is both fast and reliable for many kinds of applications.
So my answer is NOW.
Now, seriously, though, you are the closest to figuring out what this is really all about. There is a conceit in our scientific establishment that they are entitled to be immune from the normal course of deadlines because they alone must confront the unknown. The fact is, everyone must confront the unknown and everyone must adhere to some sort of a deliverable or a deadline. I could say that I should pay off my truck at the end of the year, but I don't know, because I could lose my job. It's a risk management thing. Yet, we all have bills to pay, jobs to do, and despite the seemingly impossible nature of life, and all the risk that's out there, we humans actually manage it pretty well.
Thus, with that in mind, when a scientist says, "hey, if you fund this I'll have cures for all these diseases", then, its perfectly acceptable to hold them to a date, and its ok to ask the approach they took got you closer or farther to the cure you seek. So, when people get defensive about my asking for a date for success of embryonic stem cells, they know the truth. The supposed cures are hype, meant to sell the public on doing something.
The whole debate is politicized and frankly there's more to it than the mere potential of a cure for any disease. It's not like embryonic stem cells are the -only- technology that could enable the blind to see or the lame to walk.
But the fact of the matter is embryonic stem cells are being sold to the public based on miracles that frankly -cannot- happen in the sense that they are not even on the list of deliverables for this research. I doubt very highly that there is a single embryonic stem cell grant being written that says, "I will cure parkinsons." There isn't. So why are these people selling the public on something that they aren't even trying to do. It's just a big lie.
This is my sig.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
In all -seriousness- mean, really, everyone knows that life doesn't begin at conception. Life begins when you vote Republican. Since Democrats are not alive, can we harvest them? How about prison convicts? I'd could argue that criminals aren't human.
My point is, unless you are willing to enfranchise nearly everything as human, then, you open up the door to disenfranchise those some might think of as human. It's just a terrible intellectual road to be on.... first embryonic stem cells and miracle cures.. then we'll have products made from cultured human parts like skin for jackets and bone for clothes, and then, after living in a world where everyone is just a walking bunch of parts, what's really, fundamentally wrong with getting rid of a bunch of them because they are not color coordinated? Why, we do that with babies all the time!
This is my sig.
only if you make it so that if, when cut back out, you would no longer survive. In otherwords, if you turn yourself into a parasite, then you're not a "person".
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Its disgusting, we eat our own young.
Nut Bush City Limits!
What if we go in the direction you want to go in....See how stupid i sound taking the same "bounds" of "logic" that you do?
The thing is, everything that you've proposed as far as that slippery slope goes, has been done before. We have had societies where women were punished for miscarrying. We have had societies where women were encouraged to be continually pregnant. In fact, in some parts of the world, we still do. Sounds to me like, slippery slopes aren't so stupid after all.
This is my sig.
The people who take a "humanity is defined by mental personhood" position consistently do tend to argue that certain levels of mental incapacity suffice to make someone no longer a human in the morally relevant sense. Not a very popular position, so no politicians that I know of argue that, but I do tend to respect the philosophers who do (Peter Singer being the canonical example).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I hope you're just kidding, but if not: The biggest profit you are going to make is on the product that brings the most relief to the most people because that is the biggest market. Suppose there are three diseases: Disease A that affects 10 million, Disease B that affects 1 million, and Disease C that affects 1000. The free market would promote research spending on Disease A but politics might promote research spending on whatever aliments that swing voters have or sympathize with.
Does a Scientist who lies and steals material speak for the whole of science?
Neither does a hypocrite who claims to be Christian speak for Christ. Matthew 7:21-23
As for laws and such, If neither God nor his son are forcing people to act a certain way, why should his followers? John 18:36.
Revelation 18 compares religion involved in politics to something. Check it out if you care too. That's one prophecy I'm personally looking forward to very much.
This post is to inform, not coerce.
Having worked in the hES cell field in Canada, with much close contact with researchers in the U.S., I can tell you that the source of the funding has had a very large impact. Canadian researchers are extremely collaborative, sharing unpublished data and so on with very few restrictions. This is because we are all government funded, and while commercial interests do come into it, they are "downstream" of the science. In contrast, as so much of the research south of the border is industry funded, out of necessity, the culture of sharing is much less well developed. Not to say the researchers are opposed to it, although I do get the vibe there is maybe less trust around, but that when industry is paying, industry gets to decide who you tell what when. Often they simply can't share stuff because the suits in accounting have forbidden it.
Which is one of the reasons a small country like Canada is able to make a significant mark in the field.
While I'm at it - I often see the meme show up here that says "I don't like ES cell research, so you shouldn't be allowed to use my tax dollars to pay for it!". I agree - let's let everyone who wants to take their tax money out of funding hESC research do so - with the proviso that everyone who wants to take their tax money out of the Iraq war, and put it into hESC research also gets to do so...
Wanna bet I come out ahead?
A lot of hypothermia research was conducted on Jews by the Nazis. Needless to say it was without their consent and with little regard for their safety. But as a result of this research, we now know that cold-weather rescues are quite possible as well as open heart surgery. Many lives have been saved.
So, if freezing a few Jews to death just to see if we can bring them back is wrong, at least we got a lot of good data from it. Thus justifying the holocaust, at least in part.
The entire "pro-choice" objection to the "pro-life" argument begs the question. It assumes a priori that the fertilized egg is not sufficiently a person to deserve rights, which if true obviously invalidates the pro-life objection that it is sufficiently a person to deserve rights.
Also, this is just ignorant:
I think if you look at a wide range of such issues, you'll find that the "religious right" is in fact behind some of the most vocal opposition.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
...but nothing ever "happens" under Obama?
I mean, Obama "tried" to undo executive power grab, but now supports the same in Court.
Obama "tried" to stop further bailouts, but now argues for the same.
Obama "tried" out to stop DEA in states where drugs are legal, but fails...
I mean, Obama is the perfect Manchurian Candidate. Isn't he?
(and NO, am NOT a supporter of Rush. But I prefer Ron Paul over Obama anyday, and i prefer anybody over Bush.)
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
The embryonic heartbeat begins at about 22 days after conception. It is logical to deduce that heart tissue beating at 22 days or so would have to have been formed in the period of a week or more before that. So now we're down to two weeks or so after conception that cells have already been differentiated into organ tissue and begun to operate on some nascent level. At what point does the "law of diminishing returns" kick in in your's, and everyone elses', brains on this issue? You've already lost the argument for 95% of the typical gestation cycle of a human being. Does that last two weeks left actually MEAN anything to anyone?
Human life begins as soon as the egg is fertilized and a unique set of 46 chromosomes - no longer the mother or the father (or their predecessors for that matter) -- directs development of a different life. It is astounding to me that the /. community, which tends to be made up of intellectually capable professionals and scientific folk, could be so stupefyingly obdurate and scientifically ignorant on this point. Embryo is defective? Dies. Doesn't implant? Dies. Mother has hormone or other problem? Dies usually. Stress or environmental problems? Child might die. There are lots of different reasons why an embryonic life might not make it to term and be "born." That doesn't detract from the fundamental issue -- individual human rights.
It's time to get past the argument as to whether life begins at conception. That question is done, and a matter of biological/scientific fact. I don't care about the soul argument either, or for that matter the morality of it. For the sake of argument, the only thing that matters now is, as a society, as a race and species, does an unborn citizen of the human race have a right to life and liberty? Does a woman have the right to control her body when controlling her body means the ending of a life? Should any person have a right to live, even if their mother or father want them to die? Should embryos be forced to exist in perpetual stasis because they aren't wanted anymore? Should the human race even be allowed to turn basic human procreation into a cottage industry without dealing with the very real consequences of frozen embryos? Should embryos even be created outside of the NORMAL method -- inside a human being, and not in a petri dish? Should the human race be compelled to take real responsibility for their ability to create life in EVERY respect, and not just the ones convenient for people? In other words, shouldn't two people have to take responsibility for themselves BEFORE she gets pregnant, not after?
There is no right to privacy or abortion enumerated or even implied in the Unites States constitution. It was largely invented by lawyers and the Supreme Court seeking to make and end run around U.S. law by legislating via the judicial. The Constitution guarantees implicitly and explicitly the right to life and liberty, however. The body politic of the U.S. -- and for that matter of any other country -- need to settle this. I argue that it can be proved factually that life begins at conception, and that under the framework of our society in the U.S., it is not lawful to kill someone without cause. As sick or torturous for the people involved, even in cases of rape or incest (currently well less than 2% of all abortions but horrific nonetheless for the woman and child(ren) involved) there "isn't cause" to kill the child(ren), unless you want to say that emotional distress is cause.
This whole argument is saturated in emotion, and at some point the vitriol has to stop and real HARD questions need to be asked, an answered. And you know who should be leading the charge on this, but does just the opposite? The ACLU and Democrats. Why? More people means more government to support them, more teachers, more potential taxpayers and union members, more of everything government. The ACLU should because they have always argued to defend the least defended in society. In most states the unborn have no rights.
Oh... what happened? Did your parents lose a bet with God?
In case you have not been following the literature the most recent evidence from Stanford studies indicates foreign embryonic stem cells and their offshoots are eliminated from the body by the immune system within 1-2 months. So cells derived from embryonic stem cells are most likely useless from a long term therapeutic standpoint.
And so it could be argued that government money spent on funding embryonic stem cell research is in effect *useless*. And all of the claims held up by embryonic stem cell researchers for the last decade or more should be held up to the light and seriously examined!
In contrast money spent on adult (self) stem cell research and/or pristine stem cell research (where "pristine" is attempting to isolate the least mutated most replicable cells from an adult) might just be money well spent. I would assert that each of us has a pool of pristine stem cells which could be used -- what we do not have yet is the means to isolate those cells and replicate them to sufficient numbers to be useful for therapeutic purposes.
IMO the "embryonic" stem cell bandwagon is an offshoot of the entire abortion rights / right-wing-left-wing political culture and has little to do with what will actually cure diseases and ultimately aging. And that is what it is really all about -- the living? Isn't it? [And before any right-wingers respond to this please note that this message is anti-embryonic stem cell research -- not because I object to the research from a political or religious perspective -- but because I believe scientifically that it will not work.]
From now on, please place this information at the beginning of your posts, preferably in the subject line, so I know early when to stop reading. Or, better yet, GB2Reddit.
Listen p*ssy. I'm sure your the same homo that posted earlier about alf's boner and you just want to remain anonymous fo
Because the State of California is giving out private donations?
Because 100% of the nation's research is done in California? The same California that is now facing a $40 billion deficit because of tax cutting jihadists and obviously has so much money to throw around?
I was kind of pissed at Bush for blocking federal funding on new lines until I really thought about it for awhile. There's nothing that precludes researchers from doing research on new lines.
Other than lack of funding, having to spend large sums of money on setting separate labs so no federal money would be used on the verboten stem cells, and lack of funding?
If people wanted this so bad, what prevented them from pulling out their checkbooks? Hello, there, Silicon Valley. There's lots of rich people there. How about a donation? You, too, Hollywood, if this is such a big issue.
And in other news, Chewbaca brings his family to Endor...
First, it satisfies a niche constituency, who like to see abortion-related topics pressed to the forefront at every opportunity.
Is that so, Mr. Pot? Embryonic stem cell research has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with abortion. It takes fertilized embryos from fertility clinics for research that would otherwise be thrown in the trash.
Second, his tax plan does probably kill off the possibility of private funding.
Yes, because the rich suffered SO MUCH in the 90's with a marginal tax rate 3% higher than it is now. This whining about Obama and taxes is so stupid it makes one's hair hurt.
No, this is why there is a patent system. I know, much reviled here, but that's what it's for.
But with private sector research, you have to mark off a majority of the profits for lobbying, advertising, and the annual 15% increase in compensation for board members already earning millions per year, with the little left over going back into R&D.
Second, the percentage of deduction for charitable giving for those in the top bracket is going to drop to 28% -- a 7% drop in some circumstances.
Charity is insignificant next to social spending from the government. The Hooverites in the 30's were counting on charity to pull us out of the Great Depression - it didn't happen then, and it wont happen now.
People used to do that a lot more than they do now.
Because we used to believe in the public sector in this country, and used to have a 91% marginal tax rate, even under Republican presidents like Eisenhower and Nixon. But now, after decades of free market propaganda, our media and politicians love that free market cock. They're insatiable:
Before that it is called a fetus.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
They thankfully are not human beings.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... but it is more objective and scientifically testable.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Don't agree with the research. Never use any of the advancements coming from such research.
See? Just follow the Jehovah Witnesses and such other religions that put they beliefs in the line of fire.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Wow!
You guys are really fanatics i think.
I had just questioned Obama's poll promises and his current strategy, and i get flamed...
All right, he's the next best thing since sliced bread. OK? Happy now?
Sheesh..
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
If life begins at conception ...
Since it clearly does not (ie. life must be present both in the sperm and ovum for conception to occur) can we disregard all that follows? :)
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/stemcell/appendix_d.html
Clinton Administration NIH Guidelines for Embryonic Stem Cell Funding
As printed in the Federal Register, August 25, 2000 ("National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Research Using Human Pluripotent Stem Cells," 65 Fed. Reg. 51,975, Aug. 25, 2000)
NIH funds may be used to derive human pluripotent stem cells from fetal tissue. NIH funds may not be used to derive human pluripotent stem cells from human embryos. These Guidelines also designate certain areas of human pluripotent stem cell research as ineligible for NIH funding.
--------
Give it a read - there's definitely more in there than I quoted, and the purpose of my quotation wasn't to condense the entire document (for example, ethical guidelines concerning deriving new lines from fertility clinic frozen samples is covered in detail). In other words, don't rush off repeating this as if it's the entire truth. My only point in quoting this portion is that the Clinton administration put specific limits on federal funding for ESC research. And yet, there wasn't all of the indignant fuss raised about it like there was when the Bush administration put specific limits on federal funding for ESC research. I can't help but suspect that the opposition was a politically created diversion. And, based upon the article that started this thread, I'd say an astoundingly successful diversion.
So, Clinton administration restricts ESC research with federal funding. No story. Bush administration restricts ESC research with federal funding. End of American science. Obama administration removes restrictions on ESC research with federal funding. Science story on slashdot.
I really need to put a blocking rule in my FW for slashdot. It's like watching a train wreck. My mind keeps screaming Run! Run! and I just stay rooted in place.
Well, if a team of scientists can achieve a certain level of results at a certain level of funding, they can probably reach better results with more funding. If you're the government, and you have a certain amount of funding set aside for science, you pick what projects you'd like to see giving better results than they do today. The Bush administration had qualms about this particular line of research, the Obama administration apparently doesn't.
Remember, the line between "alive" and "not alive" is completely arbitrary. Is there any logical reason to decide an alive date? 1 day, 8 days, 3 months, 6 months, birth, 1 year after birth. What's the difference, really?
Actually, I recently bought several babies so I could harvest their tissues to preserve myself. I am starting by fixing the crows feet around my eyes. I will only have to kill one baby for that. Next, I will replace the yellow, aging callouses on my toes with nice baby skin.
I am for stem cell research, but there is something creepy about using unused fetal tissue for this purpose. At what point do we become adults who figuratively eat their children to gain immortality. Baby steps people. Tasty, tasty baby steps...
Why not use more of these? Don't most umbilical cords just get thrown away? No embryos or fetuses involved, all natural process, but still stem cells. Or am I just making too much sense in my own head?
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Every_Sperm_Is_Sacred