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."
I've never understood the opposition to using existing stem cell lines for research.
Assuming there is a moral problem with destroying embryos, the damage is done. At this point you're pretty much saying "don't eat that cow" when the cow is already dead. Once it's dead you can either eat the cow and have a delicious steak or waste the cow and let it rot.
Same thing with a stem cell. Once the embryo is destroyed you can either waste it...or maybe find ways to cure a zillion diseases. Either way the embryo is still dead.
Porquoi?
During the 6 years that this has been banned how much research into life saving treatments has been delayed? How many living, breathing, people have been denied these treatments? How many more will die over the next 10 years that could have been saved?
And all to placate the extreme pro-life fringe, who count fertilized embryos (that would be destroyed anyway) as sacred, and the ignorant who continually refer to "aborted fetuses" whenever the subject comes up.
For shame.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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
And when we finally found out how to cure them, maybe we could cure the Democrats as well!
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
You put it extremely crudely, but this is more a problem than most people realize. Hospitals are not a strong business. They lose money on a lot of cases because the current costs of treating patients are ridiculous, and many insurers refuse to pay such costs - so the hospital swallows it. The most common surgery, cataract removal, typically costs its hospital thousands more to perform than they get paid, and they can't just turn the patients away. It's not all going to filthy-rich doctors and their heated pools. So many physicians are being sued for malpractice in some MSAs that the definition of "malpractice" has lost all meaning. I learned from my father (rated the 2nd best physician in the state, at what he did, when he was in practice) that there's more money in being a 100K-a-year engineer than a 400K-a-year physician -- and a much less-stressful life to live.
New technology means better healthcare means more costly healthcare means we either A) Cannot treat everyone or B) must reduce the quality of healthcare we are dispensing to sustainable levels. If these sciences find cheaper ways to fix a broken hip or perform a bicuspid valve replacement then they will aid society. If they simply come up with more expensive (albeit better) ways of current healthcare we have, then we're only digging the hole deeper. When it's 100 times cheaper to give you a 90% chance to live than to give you a 91% chance to live, they are typically compelled to spend 100 times more -- and who is going to pay for that?
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
Speaking as a furry, I'm disappointed in section IV of the guidelines. Who will give us our fluffy tails, or make Piccinini's disturbing sculptures a reality now? At this rate I might as well just buy my own island and experiment there . . .
Someone asked why on earth anyone would object to embryos being used for research - since they would be destroyed anyway.
.
The best way I can answer this is to ask why we don't take organs when people on death row are executed. The people are going to die anyway, so why not take their organs and use them for someone else's benefit.
.
I think the answer to this question is that are afraid that juries might be more likely to pass the death penalty if they are aware that there is a potential benefit to other people from the death of the prisoner. This might not be a conscious thought, but lets say you were 95% sure that the person was guilty, but you weren't totally sure. If you knew that the organs would be used to help someone else, you might think - "Hey, I'm pretty sure this person is guilty, and even if he (or she) isn't guilty, at least someone will benefit."
.
For those who think that embryos have a moral value, it is never right to use them as a means to an end. Using them (and destroying them), even for a good purpose, devalues them.
.
I know that many folks won't agree with that, and that's ok. I just wanted you to understand why people don't want them used for another purpose, even if they will be destroyed anyway.
.
The second thing I wanted to bring up is that researchers have discovered ways to "reprogram" cells, so that adult cells can be made to behave like embryonic stem cells. (See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090227112303.htm) Furthermore, any therapies based on this technique could lead to new organs or tissues that are an exact DNA match for the patient, which would probably eliminate the risk of organ rejection. As I said, these reprogrammed adult cells seem to have all of the characteristics of embryonic stem cells, which means that there may no longer be any scientific need to use embryonic stem cells. In that case, the reverse of the ban could just be a cheap political ploy to devalue the embryo and to make Bush look bad - even though there is not scientific benefit. (I agree that more research may be necessary to make sure that the reprogrammed adult cells do indeed have all of the same capabilities as embryonic stem cells).
.
Finally, I have to point out that even though Obama claimed to eliminate the false choice between ethics and science, he still implemented some ethical rules - specifically a ban of reproductive cloning. I happen to agree with this, but I thought it was disingenuous of him to pretend to get rid of ethical barriers that restricted science. All he did was eliminate the barriers that he disagreed with and retain the barriers that he did agree with. He had the right to do that, of course - he is the president - I just wish that he had spoken more clearly about what he was doing.
.
In fact, I think this whole debate suffers from major political posturing. I think that most American are completely unaware of the advances that I wrote about earlier - for the reprogramming of adult stem cells. If people were aware that there was a valid alternative to embryonic stem cells, I think there would be much less support for the destruction of embryos. Even if you aren't pro-life, I would guess that if you had two equal choices - one which destroyed an embryo, and one which did not - then you would pick the one that did not destroy the embryo.
.
I have probably written too much already. In addition to all of that, I just want to say that I hope that all of the folks who are desperately waiting for cures are able to find some help from the research. I just wish that it didn't have to come at the expense of an embryo.
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."
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."