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...
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.
"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.
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.
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.
How do you take the politics out of the science when you hold the science hostage to political considerations to get the required funds?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of 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.
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.
Unfortunately, the issue is that most Americans don't differentiate between the two main types of stem cell research - adult and embryonic. Even the title of this post doesn't! There are major differences, and if you don't already know them, see this (same site that is hosting the article): http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/health.asp There have already been cures developed from adult stem cells, and pluripotent stem cells have been developed from adult stem cells (all according to the same nih.gov site). So why do we continue to pour public time, money, and effort down the embryonic stem cell avenue when the issue is so divisive to our country? That's what private research grants are for.
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.
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.
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.