Slashdot Mirror
US Finalizes Stem Cell Research Guidelines
An anonymous reader writes with an excerpt from Cosmos Magazine, to wit: "The US government unveiled final rules for embryonic stem cell research, laying out ground rules for 'ethically responsible, scientifically worthy' studies eligible for federal funds. The new rules, which go into effect today, follow President Barack Obama's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research, an order that went into effect under his predecessor, George W. Bush. ... The US National Institutes of Health's (NIH) guidelines are slightly less restrictive than those outlined in a draft document released in April in that they allow the use of existing stem cell lines, in addition to new ones derived from IVF procedures. ... The NIH received some 49,000 comments from patient advocacy groups, scientists, medical groups, and other interested parties before issuing the guidelines."
There was no ban on embryonic stem cell research. There was a ban on the federal government using tax dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
Why do people refuse to get this right? There was never a ban on embryonic stem cell research, just a ban on federal funding of such research... Geesh. Personally, I wish there was a ban on a lot more federal funding of a lot more things. If our politicians would actually READ the Constitution and abide by it, maybe we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
In the interest of accuracy, I wish people would stop calling it a "ban on embryonic stem cell research".
While calling it a all out "ban on embryonic stem cell research" makes a great sound bite, it's horribly inaccurate. It was only a ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research for stem cell lines created after August 9, 2001. If you were willing to fund it yourself, you were free to do so. Bush's executive order didn't change that part at all which the misleading sound bite alludes to.
Now, with that interjected, back our regularly scheduled flame wars on this topic.
"President Barack Obama's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research, an order that went into effect under his predecessor, George W. Bush. "
President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research. He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time. No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.
The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.
BTW: Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed. http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures_failures.html
You're the one that is misinformed. President Clinton was the first President to deny Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. President Bush was the first President to actually provide funding for embryonic stem cell research.
Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_controversy#Origins
Anytime an activity is funded involuntarily, it's going to be a political issue. This is the case whether we're talking about whether or not to fund medical research, or whether to teach science or religion in public schools.
The moral question here isn't whether stem cell research will lead to life-saving cures or whether it's killing babies, the question is whether it's OK for the federal government to take money from us forcibly, and then spend it on any activity that's not within its enumerated powers that we granted to it in the constitution.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
A few things:
A newborn is not "self-sustaining". Hell, I know a few 30-year olds that are not "self-sustaining". What about premature babies that require incubation? They are not "self-sustaining". Are they available for experimentation?
Also, embryos in a petri dish can survive outside the womb about as long as newborn.
I suspect that the GPP was saying "self-sustaining" as in "able to survive without being directly attached to the mother's life support". A newborn can obtain oxygen and get rid of carbon dioxide and other metabolic waste without having to be connected via an umbilical to the mother. One's take on that kind of alters the scape of your other questions. A premature birth can survive, grow, and develop without being directly attached to the mother's life-support. An embryo in a petri dish cannot, as we do not have the technology or knowledge to artificially replicate a womb.
significant nervous system complexity (somewhere between 9 to 20 weeks).
9 to 20 weeks is a big range. I'm guessing you are setting it so broad because you don't know.
Again I am assuming the GPP used such a big range for a number of reasons: different individuals will develop at different rates, different people will disagree what constitutes "significant nervous system complexity", etc. Therefore your example using an exact time measurement is inapplicable.
What happens in 20 years if we find out that embryos can feel pain without a nervous system? My point is that too many times, we've thought "things" couldn't feel pain or were labeled as not or less-than human with horrific results. We should have learned by now that man is not perfect enough to decide who deserves basic rights or what is human.
This is a nonsense question. To "feel pain" you need three things: 1.) a sensor to detect damage, 2.) a transmission system to send that information to 3.) a processor to interpret that data. In mammals, this requires a nervous system. It is part of our biology. No nervous system, no pain.
May I ask a question: are you against In Vitro Fertilization? In such situations, as has been mentioned numerous times, several eggs are fertilized, a select few most viable embryos are selected for implantation, while all others which may or may not be viable are destroyed. Is this murder in your eyes? I'm not trying to jump on your case, I'm just trying to gauge your consistency.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
> 9 to 20 weeks is a big range. I'm guessing you are setting it so broad because you don't know. I don't either. Let's just say it's 14 weeks, 3.5 days. What about the baby that is 14 weeks, 2 days? Some babies mature at different rates than others. How do you know which babies have a nervous system? What happens in 20 years if we find out that embryos can feel pain without a nervous system? My point is that too many times, we've thought "things" couldn't feel pain or were labeled as not or less-than human with horrific results. We should have learned by now that man is not perfect enough to decide who deserves basic rights or what is human.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki's_Wager
Try reading it. There are 17 enumerated powers. Controlling medical research and turning our lives into political issues isn't among them.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Don't fetishize that document like it's the Gospel
It's not a work of fiction like the bible, it's a contract. It is the entirety of the legal basis for the power of the federal government.
I'm more along the lines of "Let them do it unless Article 1 Section 9 (or some other section)" says they can't.
Read the tenth amendment.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Can't stand your "government shouldn't do much of anything [especially things I don't want it to do]" attitude, no matter what the reason for it is.
It's called the rule of law, sunshine. If you want the government to do things outside the powers we've granted to it, then propose a constitutional amendment to allow it to do so. By merely ignoring the constitution, we get chaos.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."