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."
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.
Funny, I'd have thought it was not one of the first post^W things Obama's administration had promised.
I thought is was one of the first things he had done. Did he just say "go ahead" in a speech but not actually get the relevent law changed? That seems like sort of an important detail.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
About this claim that embryonic stem cell research hasn't yielded anything useful yet...
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
Both Bush and Obama differentiated between creation of embryonic stem cells and their use in research. Bush did not allow the use of stem cell lines created after ~2000. Obama allowed the use of stem cell lines created with private funds in federal research. Both administrations viewed this as consistent with the 1996 law which prohibited Federal funds from being used to destroy embryos as the stem cell lines were created with private funds. The judge wrote that one can't make this distinction between funds used to create the lines and funds for research using the lines, that the law prohibits all research using embryonic stem cell lines. I trust that the Department of Justice will appeal.
The judge was a Reagan appointee.
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.
I agree with the sentiment, but look at it this way: if a project is going to be funded with federal money, it's far more likely to be greenlit than something that might cost the company millions without the possibility of making them rich.
I don't usually trust corporations (big pharm especially) to do anything other than protect their bottom line, but stem cell research is vital and without that money it's going to take that much longer for potential miracle cures to start happening.
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;
Wow, flamebait?
Honestly, if I had mod points, this would get a +1 insightful. If you oppose something and then use it to benefit yourself you should damn well be held accountable for your actions.
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.
The absurdity of this "debate" is astounding. Blastocysts, which is the correct, but less headline grabbing, name for the clump of cells the "Embryotic Stems cells" are harvested from are all the result of in-vitro fertilization. The excess eggs that are a invariably a result of this procedure are then left in a freezer until become inviable and are discarded. "Embrytoic" stem cell research puts these cells to a use that benefits mankind rather that throwing them in a trashbin. Anyone who truly has a problem with destroying blastocytes needs to rail against the procedure that causes them, in vitro fertilization. But of course this makes for a far less compelling election speech or political rant.
Wacko 101. : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royce_C._Lamberth
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.
Whoops, old habits die hard. I thought I'd killed that one awhile back. Apologies to anyone whose brains I may have broken a little bit while reading my post. :P
(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
(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.
... 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.
The ancient question arises: when a man is a man? Is a kid less human than an adult? Is a fetus less human than a kid? Is an embryo less human than a fetus? Is a morula less human than an embryo? And we can get to the very genesis of the conception: the fusion of the gametes. There is a very clear before and after the conception, and I strongly believe that a fertilized egg should be considered a human being because of its potentiality: feed it and let it grow and it will become a man.
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...
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.
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
My thinking is that it shouldn't be considered as human until it can survive without it's mother. So of course once science advances enough that a 2 month fetus can survive outside the womb, that's when that fetus gets human rights.
But that does pose a different problem. What happens when you can let a fetus develop completely without a womb. Let's say that in 50 years that will be possible. Will the government be obligated to let all of those 4 cell frozen humans develop to maturity?
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?
If you want some actual facts about this issue, it's worth reading this.
...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
The absurdity of this "debate" is astounding. Blastocysts, which is the correct, but less headline grabbing, name for the clump of cells the "Embryotic Stems cells" are harvested from are all the result of in-vitro fertilization. The excess eggs that are a invariably a result of this procedure are then left in a freezer until become inviable and are discarded. "Embrytoic" stem cell research puts these cells to a use that benefits mankind rather that throwing them in a trashbin. Anyone who truly has a problem with destroying blastocytes needs to rail against the procedure that causes them, in vitro fertilization. But of course this makes for a far less compelling election speech or political rant.
Does it really shock you that the people arguing don't have a clue what they're actually arguing about?
Track your TV Shows with your iPhone - FREE
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.
Does it really shock you that the people arguing AGAINST STEM CELL RESEARCH don't have a clue what they're actually arguing about?
There, fixed that for you.
By this judges reasoning everyone will be guilty of violating federal guidelines every time one of their stem-cells dies, probably a few times a day at least. Now the judge has provided Obama a legal basis to rounding up his political opponents. That should really "scare white people". Time arrest Ruppert Murdoch. One look at him and its obvious he has been shedding stem cells for quite some time.
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.
Blastocysts, which is the correct, but less headline grabbing, name for the clump of cells the "Embryotic Stems cells"
Blastocyst is a more precise term, but let's be clear about one thing: blastocysts ARE embryos. The term "embryonic stem cells" was invented by one if the pioneers in the field, not someone on fox news trying to paint them in a bad light. It's an accurate term.
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.
Martin coined the term working with actual mouse embryos at multiple stages of development rather that the single stage used in in vitro treatment. The hypocrisyis not in using a less precise term but in banning a use of these cells on the grounds that we are killing embryos when in fact this research has no impact on the number of embryos that will be killed. I have not yet heard one person opposed to stem cell research suggest actually stopping in vitro fertilization,which would be the only way to stop these embryos from being killed.
"Proper treatment" like being put in a medical waste container and incinerated? Very touching. We are talking about balls of 50-150 almost-identical cells, that can never become an embryo, let alone a person. There are millions of potentially-more-viable cells in every dump you take.
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=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
They might work well at that, but getting them to do anything else that pluripotent (embryonic) stem cells can is out of reach.
There was just an announcement a few weeks back about reliably inducing the adult cells to be pluripotent.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Science says that the moment sperm and egg meet, you have a living genetically unique individual human being
No. It doesn't. It really, really doesn't.
First, "Science" doesn't "say" anything, doesn't "prove" anything, and sure as hell doesn't deal in absolutes.
Secondly, you need to go back to high school biology and listen this time instead of staring at the cheerleaders' tits. Fusion can fail - sperm and egg meet, don't get along, and you have a genetically unique individual dead cell.
If fertilization does occur, implantation can fail. This "human being" goes to the great magic man in the sky via a sanitary napkin in the ladies' room at T.G.I.Friday's.
And those are just the obvious fail points. At best, you have a "potential" for a human being.
Only if Murdoch is being paid by the federal government to shed said cells.
$ make available
Interesting, but in my experience, most embryologists don't bat an eye at calling a blastocyst an embryo.
I have not yet heard one person opposed to stem cell research suggest actually stopping in vitro fertilization,which would be the only way to stop these embryos from being killed.
It's true, the talking heads aren't calling for an end to IVF in the ESC debate, but they're only the loudest voices. In fact people have been calling for an end on IVF for a while, at my catholic grade school they did emphasize that. Matter of fact, they also oppose birth control methods that don't prevent conception, such as IUDs unless I'm mistaken.
Pretty callous group of that group of out of touch old men, demanding that any fertile woman gets saddled with as many babies as possible and any couple having trouble conceiving be cursed with no babies, but they are at least somewhat consistent.
Pretty callous group of that group of out of touch old men, demanding that any fertile woman gets saddled with as many babies as possible and any couple having trouble conceiving be cursed with no babies, but they are at least somewhat consistent.
Indeed. What's even more shocking is how many women go along with this and even actively and passionately campaign for such policies. As a guy, I've never really understood the mindset of these women (and they are NOT just a tiny subset) in this day and age. Is this part of the reason why BDSM thrives today? - the desire to be ruled?
//bewildered
Troll? I guess someone didn't appreciate the cognitive dissonance.