Slashdot Mirror
Court Rules Against Stem Cell Policy
An anonymous reader sends this quote from Reuters:
"A US district court issued a preliminary injunction Monday stopping federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research, in a slap to the Obama administration's new guidelines on the sensitive issue. The court ruled in favor of a suit filed in June by researchers who said human embryonic stem cell research involves the destruction of human embryos. Judge Royce Lamberth granted the injunction after finding that the lawsuit would likely succeed because the guidelines violated law banning the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos. '(Embryonic stem cell) research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed,' Lamberth wrote in a 15-page ruling."
Funny, I'd have thought it was not one of the first post^W things Obama's administration had promised.
Federal funds used to conduct research on embryos that would otherwise be destroyed anyway...
Why distinguish?
The enemies of Democracy are
But my mother is vegged out in a home with Alzheimer's. I may look forward to the same.
How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct.
-Benjamin Disraeli
Adult stem cells are sub-par replacements for embryonic stem cells.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
Embryos created for IVF clinics that are unused are destroyed by the clinic anyway unless the "owners" want to donate them to other patients. I think it should be up to the people who the embryos are created for to begin with as to what happens to them after the IVF process is completed. Embryos aren't people, they're collections of cells. Apparently it's ok to dispose of them but not ok to use them for research that could eventually save lives or at least have positive benefits for humanity.
Not to worry, the reset of the world can still do embryonic research.
I suggest all those Republican women who feel that the use of embryonic stem cells for medical research is a greater outrage then their eventual destruction each volunteer their uterus to bring them to term and raise as their own. Or shut the f*ck up and let science advance.
Aren't there already existing medical treatments based on somatic stem cell research, whereas embryonic stem cell research hasn't yielded anything useful yet? Keep in mind this is the whole world were talking about here, not just in the US, so the "because there is no federal funding" argument doesn't apply.
And since somatic stem cells have no issues with donor-host rejection, I'd figure them to be more promising anyways. It may be for the best that taxpayer money goes towards research that is providing actual results, rather than research that isn't.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
The only people who care about federal funding of embryonic stem cells are private corporations who don't want to have to pay their own R&D costs. This is only corrupt, politically controlled, federal funding. Conduct all the stem cell research you want you losers.
Don't bitch next time Exxon wants billions in tax incentives to drill regionally. You support federal funding for businesses to make a profit right?
I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
I think it's time we start recording public policy votes and prohibit use of technology by individuals who opposed it! I'm tired of these hypocrites.
Doctors James Sherely of Watertown, Massachusetts, and Theresa Diesher of Seattle, identified by Lamberth as adult stem cell researchers, sued in August 2009, arguing that NIH guidelines breach the Dickey-Wicker strictures. They also argued that they were being irreparably harmed by having to compete for NIH funding with researchers using embryonic cells.
Wait, what? They're being done harm by competing with this research? So... embryonic cells are that much superior? (Sounds like we should make sure this is as legal as can be pronto!) But they can't evidently use them themselves?
Man, if I could sue every time I found someone else who had an edge on me in research, I'd be the only person active in my field right now. Sign me up!
Can't even say "HUMAN EMBRYONIC stem cell policy" correctly.
Science says that the moment sperm and egg meet, you have a living genetically unique individual human being. 50 years ago, premature babies born more than a month early were unlikely to survive. Today, premature babies born a few months early can be saved. Science is definitely heading in the direction of being able to gestate a human outside of the womb from conception to "birth" - whatever that would mean and however creepy that would be.
There is a group arguing from a religious, blind faith point of view - but it isn't those who claim that you have a real, living, unique individual human at the moment of conception.
Science vs. blind faith... on this topic, the facts are clear.
Can someone explain to me why the mushrooms inhabiting Foggy Bottom continue to do things that they *know* are in direct contravention to existing law before addressing those conflicting laws *first?*
It is because they are utter idiots, or is it because they really didn't mean it to succeed in the first place? :\
Regards;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
There is a good reason to avoid embryonic stem cell altogether. The biggest reason is because we have no good ways to control its potential to form teratoma, which is basically cancerous mass of tissues of all types. That's what's happening at those rogue Russian stem cell clinics. Although it is true that ESCs have the biggest potential to regenerate, it's also most potent cancer forming cells. Some theorize that cancer is actually rogue stem cells. Another practical reason why ESCs could be avoided is because adult stem cells have been shown to be able to transform to embryonic counterparts. This is a complex topic of its own. If you are interested look up IPS = induced pluripotent stem cell.
"Destroying embryos?" First of all these aren't "embryos" -- that is a weasel word often used by fundies and Republicans to conflate an undifferentiated blastocyst with a viable fetus as probably both parties believe that the blastocyst, ney, the zygote, has a "soul." "Embryo" implies more advanced development which is what a blastocyst becomes when its development differentiates it as a human being . A blastocyst is a sphere of about 100 cells filled with fluid, the blastocoele, which contains a clump of pluripotent stem cells attached to its inner wall called the ebryoblast. This is what they're talking about when they say "embryo" : a blob of stem cells. And when they talk about "destroying" the "embryo" what really happens is that the blastocyst is punctured ( Oh no! It's destroyed! ) and the embryoblast stem cells are extracted and allowed to multiply a petri dish. These cells ARE NOT VIABLE -- that is babies won't sprout up like fucking mushrooms from the petri dish. And the blastocysts, they aren't viable unless implanted into a working uterus. Furthermore, what's going to happen to the "embryos" ( blastocysts ) that aren't needed? Can you say medical waste and a furnace? If "destroying embryos" is the equivalent of killing a person, then you commit mass murder every time you take a shit because there are more bacterial cells in your intestines than in your body. Going further with that thought, don't you also commit mass murder when you ejaculate? You know those sperm could have been babies! For fucks sake I'm damn sick of this bullshit.
jdb2
Wacko 101. : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royce_C._Lamberth
Stop aborting grammar and using apostrophes for plural words. Just stop.
Keep in mind that this is just a preliminary injunction. The case itself still has to be tried, but the injunction prevents funding for embryonic stem cell research so that the trial can be completed. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that issuing a preliminary injunction requires a finding that the moving party would suffer irreparable harm and that there's a likelihood of success at trial. There may be other factors involved, so if there's a Slashlawyer around here, feel free to fill in the blanks.
(I know I left I lot out, but I don't think I'm distorting the meaning). As far as I can tell, liver cells in a petri dish would count as human embryos under that definition.
Then if President Obama wants the funding, he needs to convince Congress (which his party controls) to tighten the wording of the law, or repeal it altogether.
The judge pretty much had to block this. The President can't simply wave his hand and declare a law passed by Congress (and sighed by the previous President) to be null and void. There's still that whole separation of powers thing to consider. If the wording of the Dickey Amendment is too vague, then it's the responsibility of Congress to fix it.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
into congratulating this judge for legislating from the bench.
Truly it'll be consistent with their approach before...which is to do whatever it takes to get their agenda in place, and screw the principles they just got done endorsing!
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death
So, we aren't distinguishing between research destroying embryos, and research that uses embryos that necessarily are doomed to destruction if they aren't allowed to replicate in stem cell research.
Glad I got that straight.
There is just no way to square it with the statute.
I disagree. Exercise the ability to distinguish, and it is clear how this is not research in which embryos are destroyed, but research in which they are allowed to live when they would otherwise be destroyed. Not live and develop into humans, but that really isn't possible anyway.
The enemies of Democracy are
Adult stem cells are sub-par replacements for embryonic stem cells.
And yet, despite your claim, almost all of the big advances from stem cell research has come from non-embryonic lines of cells.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Not to worry, the reset of the world can still do embryonic research.
Embryonic research never ceased in the US. It was never banned. Federal funding for it was restricted, but research continued from other funding sources. We've not yet reached the point where everything comes from the federal government. Yet.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
True, Australia developed the Gardasil vaccine which prevents cervical cancer, and some years ago
developed the cochlear implant. Plenty of medical advances are made outside the US if you have a look around. I for one am sick of USAians making this sort of claim.
Troll? Oh, common. An attempt at humor, even a sardonic one, does not make a troll.
Looking over how the moralizing comments in this discussion have been moderated up, it seems Tocqueville's observation in Democracy In America sadly rings as true today as when he first penned them.
There are certain populations in Europe whose unbelief is only equaled by their ignorance and their debasement, while in America one of the freest and most enlightened nations in the world fulfills all the outward duties of religion with fervor.
By such mod standards, I guess, that quotation too is a troll.
Funny, living in Rochester, there was a big celebration about the University of Rochester's work in creating the HPV vaccine... looking it up, the UofR, Georgetown, and the US National Cancer Institute (all 3 American institutions) laid the groundwork. The University of Queensland (Australia) had some research that fell short of its goals, but the NCI completed the work.
So, while the Australians did contribute, it sure doesn't sound like they're wholly responsible for the creation of Gardisil or even responsible for the final drug. Likewise, much of the research for cochlear implants happened outside of Australia, though in that case, Aussies did eventually perfect the final device.
I'm all for celebrating the accomplishments of science anywhere in the world, especially since it generally doesn't happen in a vacuum... but, to borrow wording from you, I'm sick of "USAian" haters claiming that the US is just a giant piece of crap regarding the topic of the day. Australia is a very unique and awe inspiring place, you don't need to put down the US or its people to make yourself feel better. That you harbor so much ill will for the US says more about you than it does the US.
... but you were an embryo too, and if your mother had dealt with you the same way the researchers are dealing with other embryos, you wouldn't be here making this statement.
I'm glad this happened. Now the embryos can be thrown away, like they're supposed to be.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Same reason most of us would hesitate to purchase one of the lampshades made out of the skin of Jewish holocaust victims-
Because we know that the life of the humans from which they came are intrinsically worth something and their remains deserve proper treatment.
Amen, brother. Most of us here at slashdot are with you on this, brother. Praise God!
Isn't there too many people on this earth anyways?
We kill people in stupid wars.
So who the hell cares?
I mean, seriously, here's something that can better mankind, and considering all the crappy shit we do to each other, why are they bitching about this?
Be seeing you...
I know where it comes from, historically: the anti-abortionists.
But what makes it so silly is that the same people who oppose this very often approve of the destruction of human life on the grand scale in the form of war, executions or by standing idly by when when those less fortunate than themselves die in misery.
Stemcells, embryonic or otherwise, are just cells. Human stemcells are admittedly human, but they die anyway all the time; we kill human cells all the time simply by living - when you eat food, cells are abraded off your mouth and digested, when you touch something, you leave skincells to die on every surface etc. And in a sense every cell in a body is "embryonic" since it is ultimately derived from an embryo.
I can follow people's sentiment when they are against abortion - it does look rather like killing a newborn baby in some cases - but a newly formed embryo contains less human cells than what you shed when you blow your nose. Nothing to get sentimental about, really.
Yes, Congress passed a law banning embryonic research. President Bush also issued at least two executive orders limiting research. President Obama still needs to issue an order to rescind the earlier ones, which is what I believed he had done. If the court finds Obama's order in conflict with existing law, whither the Bush orders?
I suppose the devil is in the details.
You know, That might be insightful if it was factually correct.
http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Health/FetalHomicideLaws/tabid/14386/Default.aspx
Even CA calls it Homicide if malicious forethought. It would be an exercise for the reader to see if the laws are ever enforced.
Oh - the religious people; those who know better than the rest of us on the basis of some myths for which they have no real evidence. Well - if they object so much then please do not take advantage of any medical treatments that are as a result of what they consider to be immoral/whatever acts and leave the rest of us alone.
People tend to misunderstand this, they mistake the founding fathers ideal of political independance from church for complete divorce of faith and policy. The USA was founded on the words:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The reference to a creator shouldn't really surprise us when we think about the time when this was written. The founding fathers believed that faith should have a place in influencing political decisions but they also believed that organised religion had NO place in government. Religion in Europe was so intertwined in politics it was unreal, if you read about the Pope's, Anti-Popes and the constant switching of religions in England every time the king changed, you can understand why they wanted to keep the stinkin' priests out of government. Unfortunately with the Reverends and ministers elbowing their way into congress even these original ideals are under threat. It's not their faith that's the threat, it's the fact that we put them into government itself.
'(Embryonic stem cell) research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed,' Lamberth wrote in a 15-page ruling.
Wow, he must have used a really large font!
Error: No error occurred
you have a unique collection of cells. Rather like every sperm (which is sacred) is unique.
Yet masturbation is not banned and criminal.
Neither are periods.
On this topic, you are clear: you are an idiot.
There are now multiple lines of human cancer cells living and reproducing indefinitely. How do you know that they don't have souls too? They are alive. They have complete sets of human genes. They are just as much 'human life' as a blastocyst is.
All argument in favor of souls for the blastocysts instead of the cancer cells must turn on their potential to become fully-formed human beings. Why then are they not potential people instead of actual people?
Actually, that 'reality' is in dispute.
Not the 'biologically distinct' aspect. The 'human being' aspect. An fertilized egg or a blastula is certainly 'human life', but by that definition so is a liver cell. The question is, is it a human being?
I've thought about this, and reached the conclusion that if it doesn't have a human brain, then it's not a human being. Whether or not a brain is a sufficient condition for 'humanity', it seems to be a necessary one. So, a fertilized egg or a blastula, while certainly 'human life', is not (yet) a 'human being', so far as I can tell.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
For all the bickering about the morality of this issue and the legality of the law, it's actually quite simple (if, like me, you don't like the current ruling). Change the law to allow federal funding of this sort of research. Or better yet, amend the Constitution and prohibit the government from outlawing this sort of research.
War is clearly about killing grown human embryos but nobody in the USA has a problem fighting 2 of them. I guess if it means lower gas prices some day we're ok with it.
And just why do your moral concerns outweigh the rights of others to live longer, healthier lives? Why must die sooner and suffer medical problems to fit your vision of "morality"? Is that even a moral stance? Sounds immoral to me.
Its ironic, but because masturbation largely involves haploid cells, by the logic of this judge's ruling, it would be one of the few things you could do that would be legal, since it doesn't involve the death of diploid cells. However, should you engage in it too vigorously, you might wind up killing a few muscle cells in your arm and that would be a capitol crime under this law, since it resulted in the death of diploid cells. In fact, breathing or coughing could be also regarded as punishable,since both ultimately result in the death of diploid lung cells. It would probably be best to go ahead and arrest you now, before you kill again.
Human erythrocytes are probably a poor example, since they loose their nucleus during development making them neither diploid or haploid. The basis of this judge's ruling is that a diploid cell was created and hence a life was "taken" when a diploid cell is destroyed. Unfortunately, nearly all cells in the body are diploid, except for unfertilized reproductive cells, and consequently the ruling can, if taken to is logical extension, make it a crime to do anything that might constitute research leading to the destruction of diploid cells. Since nearly every human activity involves the death of diploid cells, if it is allowed to stand this ruling virtually bans all human activity by any federal employee.
Looks like time to round up politicians for their capitol crimes.
all cells were stem cells at some point in their development. Sadly, the law does not make the distinction, which is really only one of timing and consequences of intracellular development. The law makes it illegal to conduct research on cells that are diploid. Since all cells, except for unfertilized reproductive cells that are haploid, as written it effectively bans all government research that might lead to the death of a diploid cel. Ironically, the ruling can now be used to probably halt any military research, since during the course of such research a government researcher is almost certainly likely to cough, over exert themselves, urinate, defecate, eat (causing death of cells in the wall of the gut because of shear forces generated by food).
It won't be long before lawyers and politicians begin to apply this logic in earnest to challenge anything a government official does, as just talking can lead to the death of muscle cells in the vocal cords.
It would be a delicious irony if this judge's logic is allowed to stand and pro-choice democrats could force anti-abortion republicans to filibuster a proposed change of the law and then arrest them when they get hoarse for violating the very law that they will be trying to protect with their filibuster. For those seeking an end to the filibuster, this ruling is a godsend.
clearly it should be done as it saves lives and heal the sick and the dying.
Those folks who cry moral outrage are simply hypocritical, as they routinely ignore the tens of thousands of lives that are lost each year due to just their failure to demand greater enforcement of auto, food, workplace safety laws (not to mention foreign policy related to preemptive war) with a fervor equal to that surrounding their "moral defense" of "unborn" diploid cells. To argue otherwise, is to simply bear false witness and unwittingly accept eternal damnation for using a broken moral compass.
if some are correct and developmental channeling that leads all cells from being "stem cells" to becoming differentiated can be reversed to some degree given the proper manipulations, then all cells have this "potential". Consequently, anything that leads to any kind of cell death is "taking a potential life". Just brushing your teeth would makes you guilty of murder by your version of morality. Granting cells "rights" because of their potential leads to all sorts of absurdities. If not, then it is my right to sue the government for not having you arrested for brushing your teeth. After all, you are killing diploid cells when you do so.
Even if your conclusion is right, your arguments are weak. Bacteria aren't people. Sperm can't grow into a human. If the blastocyst is 'alive', then it's a human being, at one stage of development. Whether that demands societal or governmental protection is a separate matter. Defining 'life' is tricky.
Since 'funding scientific research' isn't an enumerated power of Congress, there's an easier solution than all of this debate-without-resolution - just stop.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)