Slashdot Mirror
Draft Stem Cell Guidelines Threaten Research
Death Metal suggests we peruse a piece up at Wired on how the Obama administration's draft guidelines for stem cell research could invalidate hundreds of cell lines. "Under the Obama administration's proposed rules for funding embryonic stem cell research, hundreds of existing cell lines could be ineligible, even those that qualified under President Bush. The guidelines were written by the National Institutes of Health and are currently in draft form and expected to be finalized in July. But in their current state, they restrict funding to stem cell lines produced according to new rules that are only now being established. Few existing cell lines will meet those requirements. 'The so-called Presidential lines aren't suitable for actual medical application,' said Patrick Taylor, deputy counsel at Children's Hospital Boston, who criticized the NIH guidelines in a paper published Thursday in Cell Stem Cell. 'But we're talking about many, many more lines. The new lines were created with extensive ethical oversight. They're at stake here.'"
And this is why I was so cynical about the election. It's the same old business as usual.
Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
The so-called Presidential lines aren't suitable for actual medical application
They were, and still are, suitable for research. Many of these lines have been contaminated in ways which pretty much already precluded any actual medical application.
Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
Why can't the ethical debate be side stepped, by using cord blood cells? I never hear this mentioned when the topic of federal funding for stem cells comes up. I figured someone here could explain the pros and cons of these cells from a research point of view.
a draft...meaning its up for review and revision...
there can also be, get this, several of them created until they get it right.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Wouldn't it be better to really get the government out of science altogether and let the actual scientists decide what to research instead of having some politically and/or religiously motivated bureaucrat making those decisions for them? Federal funding has always come with politically motivated restrictions. When Obama said he was getting the government "out of" science by increasing governmental funding I couldn't help but roll my eyes.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
At least the "I support stem cell research" sound byte sounded good!
-- if you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine
Or more to the point, does it, really work that way?
Taylor noted that removing federal support for ESC lines supported by Bush wouldnâ(TM)t only affect use of the cells, but all the work done to characterize line-specific behaviors and tendencies. âoeWhen you take a cell line and say weâ(TM)re not going to use it any more, youâ(TM)re talking about a tremendous body of information,â he said.
So if Uncle Sam isn't willing to pay the bills any more, the whole lot goes into the trash?
Why, then, are there more than 21 lines in existence now? And how is it possible that there are as many as 700 lines that are over 10 years old?
No, it seems to me that they will just have to get their money from somewhere else. And if their research is as appealing as they claim it should be, there should be other sources of funding.
This is more about Chicken Little than anything actually important to humanity...
A small but highly vocal minority of the population wields undo influence over the GOP. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, seeks to avoid becoming tarnished with the same crud that the GOP smeared themselves with, and thus actively seeks compromise at every turn. Polls indicate that stem cell research has broad, lasting support among American voters. Don't let the spirit of compromise wind up blocking this valuable research. You won, Obama, tell your party, and your bureaucracy to get on with it, already.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
At issue here are the NIH's proposed guidelines regarding a woman's consent to stem cell research when her donated eggs and embryos are used to create a cell line. The NIH wants to stiffen them to make sure that a woman has to specifically agree to let her eggs be used for stem cell research. I can understand that because I sure as hell wouldn't want cell lines made from my genetic material without my consent.
The problem is that these standards, if applied retroactively, would invalidate many of the currently-available stem cell lines. Scientists are more than happy to apply these new standards going forward, but obviously want current stem cell lines to be grandfathered in. I hope that the NIH clarifies the guidelines to allow already-existing stem cell lines to be used. After all, these are the draft standards, not the final ones.
I am happy that the NIH concerns do not seem to be motivated by a political agenda. Informed consent is the keystone of all medical treatment and medical research. This is a welcome change compared to the Bush Administration, which made scientific decisions based on religious and political grounds. Snow flake babies? Really? Come on.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
. . . come up with your own funding. It's not as though embryonic stem cell research is illegal.
Just keep swimming.
Once Big Pharma (read: private funding) figures out how to make money off stem cells, you can bet your ass this tech will skyrocket.
All hail capitalism!!!
Great more bureaucracy for scientists to pay/fight through to get anything done. No wonder the US is loosing its edge in just about everything.
If you want advancement, find a lot of brilliant scientists who are passionate about their work, lock them in a compound, feed 3 times a day and give them any scientific equipment/information they want without having to worry about cost, ethics or bureaucracy. Within a year you will have a solution to global warming, male pattern baldness, efficient energy storage and if most are male, robotic hookers. Or maybe something more destructive then the atom bomb.
You mean like China? You assume that Scientists will act ethically without any oversight.
Only stem cells lines with properly protective representation can be used. Unions are having trouble getting stem cells to vote for union representation in anonymous voting. The stem cells which can be used are the ones which ACORN registered to vote, and their senators are helping them to be used and taxed.
"Only stem cells created from sources which have little chance of ever being implanted for pregnancy may be used, and only with the consent of the genetic donors"
Ta-Da!!
One sentence that captures what they're actually trying to say, without invalidating the work that has already been done. Just write it in plain, understandable English and move on to the next issue please.
Seems like they'd find some other way to pay for it, doesn't it?
No. Federal funding is not corporate revenue. It is taxpayer money. The taxpayers absolutely have the right (under a Democratic system) to ensure expenditures of those funds are in line with their needs, values, etc. The elected officials properly make political decisions regarding spending taxpayer money--as it should be.
Keep in mind that these rules for stem cell lines only concern what the US Government (mainly the NIH) will be permitted to fund with research dollars. The other stem cell lines needn't be abandoned or thrown away, they just can't be publicly funded.
Private and public companies can still conduct research on them, and several states (notably California) have alternate stem cell research funding programs available, with less stringent guidelines.
The government (not merely the Obama administration) is in a tight spot between those that want absolutely no research conducted on embryonic stem cells, and those that want to follow where the science leads them regardless of tricky ethical considerations.
I think the administration's position is a decent compromise. Plus, it is a foot in the door to loosening restrictions further. In this particular area of research, I feel a conservative (in the literal sense: resistant to change, hesitant, deliberate; NOT the political, neocon meaning), incremental approach is best until we have a good sense of what we are dealing with - the incredible benefits and the awesome risks. This grasp and understanding must be pervasive, too, not just within the small cadre of cutting-edge researchers, but also in the minds of policy-makers and the general public who would be funding this research.
it is also painful to read these ignorant posts.
Read the damn guidelines and at least understand which one aren't allowed, why, and which ones are allowed.
In the long run, this opens up a lot or new lines then where allowed in the previous administration.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The taxpayers absolutely have the right (under a Democratic system) to ensure expenditures of those funds are in line with their needs, values, etc. The elected officials properly make political decisions regarding spending taxpayer money--as it should be.
For better or worse a large number of those tax payers are going to object that the expenditures of these funds don't match their values regardless of what you do. Hence why it would make more sense to get the Government out of it altogether and let private capital fund this research.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
What Obama talked about was taking the politics out of science, not the government. Those aren't the same thing.
Rainbows and ponies, glued together with hope! Vote Obama '08!
Sigh...
They might object but they will have been represented. That is the key difference. If the political leaders truly, routinely make decisions against the majority then they will no longer be the political leaders.
They might object but they will have been represented. That is the key difference. If the political leaders truly, routinely make decisions against the majority then they will no longer be the political leaders.
The tyranny of the majority is just as insidious as other kinds of tyranny. When the Government takes my money and uses it to fund things that I have moral objections to I have no recourse. When private capital does it I can choose to invest my funds with a different firm.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Are the media going to do reports on the "Obama ban", like they've been doing on the "Bush ban"? Is it only a "ban" when you take funding from 0 to something non-0?
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
No. The scientists have to get their funding from somewhere; and the government throws a lot of money around. The other options for funding are worse: You can get it from corporations, who will only fund research if they see a way to make a profit from it in the next three to five years; or you can get from universities, but I understand that the political games in academia are far more vicious than they are in government.
Loose things are easy to lose. You're getting your hair cut. They're going there to see their aunt.
Taken to it's logical conclusion, this is merely an argument for anarchy. Say I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons, and I don't want my tax dollars spent encouraging or enabling people to eat meat. Consequently, I don't think the government should take my money and use it to fund stuff like health inspections at slaughterhouses or meat packing plants, etc. because that encourages people to eat meat. Also, I'm a religious fundamentalist and believe that I must literally cleave to the proscriptions in Leviticus, meaning I also don't want the government doing anything that involves shellfish, pork, or garments with more than one kind of material in them. And finally, I'm a pacifist and believe that all violence is wrong. Therefore, none of my money should be spent on the military; for that matter, I don't want that money going to my local police force because they carry guns and nightsticks.
Eventually, you'll find someone who has an objection to everything. So then, anarchy, because there's nothing at all you'll be able to find the government can fund and not run afoul of someone's ethical concerns.
Or more to the point, does it, really work that way?
It's not too far off. NIH funds more biomedical research than anyone else, and it has rules about sharing resources.
Consequently, I don't think the government should take my money and use it to fund stuff like health inspections at slaughterhouses or meat packing plants, etc
I don't believe that the government should be using my money for those purposes. When you buy an electrical appliance are you content with the UL listing or do you limit your purchases to those appliances that have been tested by some Federal agency?
And finally, I'm a pacifist and believe that all violence is wrong. Therefore, none of my money should be spent on the military; for that matter, I don't want that money going to my local police force because they carry guns and nightsticks.
The difference is that the military is actually envisioned by the Constitution. Federal funding for scientific research and slaughterhouse inspection is not.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Big business rarely funds raw science, and due to their nature generally tend to look for the quick buck rather than long term progress. Also they have a genuine in keeping most research private, and patenting everything that crosses their mind.
Your plan would likely lead to nothing but another 10 different ED treatments.
Obama is shaping up as a man who fearlessly combines the worst features of both parties.
Are those lines forbidden from use, or only ineligible for FEDERAL MONEY when used? Bush placed no restrictions on what stem cells anybody could finance research on, and I don't believe Obama does either; it only restrict the expenditure of public money on such. I think that (very important) point was overlooked by many.
Nonsense. The tradeoff is small. Generally speaking, the politically-motivated decision makers are the appointees. They can set the direction of an organization, but they do not do the work. There are thousands of government scientists. They do good SCIENCE, which by it's very nature is truth-driven. Now whether you consider the pursuit of truth "politically motivated" or not is a matter of interpretation.
My brother works for the BFRL at NIST. Now, a lot of what they work on does not affect you. It's pure science. Fire in zero-G, for instance. This stuff would not be funded by commercial science, and much of it is too expensive for non-profit research institutions.
But this pure science-- it spins off in ways you couldn't imagine ahead of time. Being able to synchronize clocks around the world. Being able to buy something that weighs "1 kg" and knowing that, when you get it, it's the same "1 kg" that you meant.
The BFRL at NIST also looks at lots of practical things. Things like "How can we find people trapped in fires?" or "Can we develop a method for city planners to make smart staffing decisions for fire departments?" These practical things are often a direct consequence of pure science that was published many years before. And the scientists themselves, who work down the hall from each other, interact in many unexpected and positive ways. All of these things are of great value, but in many cases, they would not be done for lack of direct money-making potential. Government science keeps us safe, and it keeps our country competitive. It is absolutely essential.
Please show me one quote from the previous President telling anyone who they can sleep with. Why is this moderated "Insightful"?
I am no fan of overreaching government (yeah, I am one of those libertarian whackos), but shouldn't /. mods maintain a modicum of neutrality and ability to think critically about what they moderate?
End anonymous moderation and posting on
get the Government out of it altogether and let private capital fund this research.
On the contrary, this is why it makes more sense to point out, like JFK did, that leaders must lead their people, rather than pander to them. Sometimes this means doing things that your constituents do not want, but nonetheless, desperately need.
I think it is high time for a leader who does what is needed and not what is wanted. Whether Obama is the person remains to be seen.
Look at history. There have been many instances where the public (not some activists lawmaker) DIDN'T want science to be self regulating. For example, when it was revealed through newspaper articles in the 1960s that scientists were conducting experiments on cats and dogs, the enraged public (we're talking tens of thousands) wrote their congressmen and pushed for regulation. Hence, the creation of the 1966 Animal Welfare Act and many other regulatory legislation pieces since then, as well as the formation of several oversight agencies, like OLAW and IACUC. If the masses wanted deregulation, with enough pressure and letters/emails it could happen. Unlikely, but it could. Okay, maybe I'm just being imaginative.
"Engineering. Where the noble, semi-skilled laborers execute the vision of those who think and dream." -Sheldon
I don't believe there is malice or conspiracy on the part of Obama administration at all. It's just plain ignorance, the hallmark of the empty slogans of hope fed through the adoring masses of those who lacked the intelligence to see through those slogans (media) to those to whom "hope" means a hope of more handouts (the entitlement class).
This is one bright future we are building for our children.
End anonymous moderation and posting on
I agree, The Governments role in the funding of science should be flat across the board with equal percentages for each important segment of scientific research (ie. Medical, AeroSpace, Fossilized History, etc.) that way no one who did "favors" during election gets a greater share. Unfortunately our government seems insistent on getting involved in issues they don't belong in. (third world countries' wars).
Wouldn't it be better to really get the government out of science altogether and let the actual scientists decide what to research instead of having some politically and/or religiously motivated bureaucrat making those decisions for them?
Considering most of the recent technological developments were because of government (internet, GPS, blood transfusions, microwave, radar, nuclear power etc) I will have to disagree.
Yes, private business expanded on the ideas after the conception to what they are today and to be really fair I should say "the military" instead of just "the government", but without the artificial spending into defense, we wouldn't have seen so many technologies in such a small amount of time.
Really, if anything I'd argue in order to advance the quality of life we need more government R&D and writing DARPA a blank check wouldn't be a bad start.
Keep in mind we spend more tax money on things that don't really create research directly like Social Security and health care costs (not research).
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Didn't everyone hear? It's easy to take a cell from your body, force embryonic stem cell transcription factors into it, and it basically becomes a stem cell! In fact, it's even better, because it has your DNA. The technology behind this will (and basically already has) made this debate yesterday's news for anybody in the know.
I work in an embryonic stem cell lab. Most, if not all, of these human embryonic stem cell (hESC) lines require irradiated mouse embryonic fibroblast cells, or mEFs ("feeders"), in culture for the hESCs to maintain self-renewal and pluripotency. Feeder-free hESC systems are really difficult to work with, and few had any success with them. Since these hESCs were cultured with xenologous cells, they aren't clinically compliant to begin with. What the heck is Taylor talking about??
Oh yes? So who do you think is going to pay? Private enterprise? That's never worked. If the taxpayer pays, the taxpayer's got a right to a voice.
What happens in effect is that the people are led by leaders, not by themselves, and these leaders make the decisions. The only difference is that in private enterprise they're completely unaccountable, in government, they are, just a bit.
Private enterprise has not funded more than a hundredth of scientific achievements in the last century.
To stop government funding would be to stop most research. Who else pays for it?
Private enterprise has not funded more than a hundredth of scientific achievements in the last century.
Yeah, except for the laser (Hughes Research Laboratories), light bulb (various private inventors, finally brought to market by Thomas Edison), electrical engineering (Telsa, Westinghouse, Edison, etc), the telephone (various inventors not connected with Government), blah, blah, blah, blah. We'd all be helpless sheep stuck in the middle-ages if it wasn't for all that Government funding of scientific research......
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
So this only affects government funding? Phew! Guess buying aborted foetuses to make that Shakey's Pizza shop is still a goer then.
"A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist" - Sir Humphrey Appleby
Depends on the appliance; I do pay attention to the Energy star ratings and consumption figures that are on major appliances. If you're buying medicines, do you buy the ones that are tested by an independent agency that at least ought to provide a reasonable expectation of independence from manufacturers, or do you just trust that whatever Dr. Watson has bottled up for his patent medicine show is perfectly safe and does what it's marketed to do?
Article 1, Section 8, which grants congress the power to:
The authority to write laws providing for health inspections of slaughterhouses, among other things, rather obviously fall under such a power.
But, to return to something you said initially:
In what way do you not have recourse? We have elections in the US, as well as a free press. Vote for that person who will best represent you, and make use of your freedom of speech to convince others to see things your way.
Aren't libertarians just anarchists with money?
Wouldn't it be better to really get the government out of science altogether and let the actual scientists decide what to research instead of having some politically and/or religiously motivated bureaucrat making those decisions for them? Federal funding has always come with politically motivated restrictions. When Obama said he was getting the government "out of" science by increasing governmental funding I couldn't help but roll my eyes.
The problem is that returns are too long and intermittent for private industry to fund basic research, the government has to provide the money if it's going to get done.
And once the money is being supplied there has to be some kind of oversight, the only hope is that the oversight is based on legitimate scientific and moral grounds, not politics.
I stole this Sig
Taken to it's logical conclusion, this is merely an argument for anarchy.
Yes, and?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
How could two whole continents,
Lose their name to one Constituent
Where were we when the U.S. went,
And took the word American away?
But to be fair to them,
Their other name options,
Like U.S.A.ers or United Statesians,
Were pretty bad
Still I want to be as American,
As the French are European,
Or those in Antarctica are Antarctican
Even if their just penguins!
They might object but they will have been represented. That is the key difference. If the political leaders truly, routinely make decisions against the majority then they will no longer be the political leaders.
You're stating one of the primary fallacies of Representative government.
I disagreed with a lot of how the Republicans screwed things up while in power, however I think the Democrats are probably worse long-term. Unfortunately, I was not given a vote on what parts of the Repubican policies that I agreed with, and what parts of the Democratic policies that I agreed with.
As long as there are hot-button issues that force voters to ignore the important, but secondary issues, its possible for the government to ignore the majority's opinion on a single policy, and even a group of policies, near-indefinitely.
In fact, I would bet that if we had a time machine, ALL research would probably do better without Bush, with the exception of "research" done to support abstinence only programs and homosexual conversion therapy.
Please, spare the hype. We could just as easily say that the only thing Democrats want to research is how to turn us into government cheese gobbling
homos. I mean, after all, Democrats have no problem spending 5 times as much on stopping HIV than they would the regular flu. God forbid we actually research a cure that benefits straight white males. One wonders why does everyone else have to give up smoking or eating decent food as prevention for heart disease or lung cancer, with no research into a cure, but, people can't be bothered to control their own sex lives?
Fact is, President Bush and the Republican Congress jacked up funding for a great many things that will likely be curtailed in this administration.
Research into fuel cells has been suspended by Obama. While this seems like a big hurrah for those think the hydrogen economy is a sham, the underlying problem of fuel cells is about designed better and better membranes to allow the hydrogen and oxygen to pass through and give up the electron on the way to becoming water. There's all sorts of fringe benefits from membrane research - including desalination, environmental cleanup, better time release for pills, and so on. But President DUMB ASS killed that because he had to suck it up to his windmill worshipping anti-car crowd.
Any research into missile defense is going to be stopped. It has nothing to do with the engineering problem being difficult - after all, a lot of other things the fed is plowing money into is hard. It's just that, Democrats think we are all safer when we are naked nuclear targets. So, in order make Democrats feel good, we lose all the experimental data for reactivity in hypersonic realm, which would certainly benefit civilian space flight.
Speaking of space flight, there's a pretty big rumor that Democrats want to kill the NASA manned space effort. Guess putting people on Mars, learning how to survive in deep space for extended periods, is not such a big deal. Guess we'll just stay on earth for all eternity.. way to go Dems.
Any research into medical differences due to race and gender are going to be crushed, as Democrats usually try and crush any scientific research that highlights physiological differences between different people. Perhaps they are willing to let people die to avoid offending their obsessive quest for a made up physical equality.
This is my sig.
Your information must be incorrect. All things under Obama are better than under Bush.
I did say the twentieth century. Only the laser would qualify from your list. Proves my point, really.