Slashdot Mirror
NIH Orders Halt To Embryonic Stem Cell Research
sciencehabit writes "Responding to a court order issued a week ago, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on Friday ordered intramural researchers studying human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) to shut down their experiments. NIH's action — probably unprecedented in its history — is a response to a preliminary injunction on 23 August from US District Judge Royce Lamberth. The judge ruled that the Obama policy allowing NIH funding to be used to study hESC lines violates a law prohibiting the use of federal funds to destroy embryos."
... Backwards ...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Lobby Congress and the President (who are rather in the majority at the moment) to change the law in the first place?
Oh wait... that's not weaseling, sorry.. I'll come in again.
Well, it might suck, but presuming the legal basis of the court ruling is valid, I'm appreciative that they shut the experiments down.
Before you flame me into a crispy marshmallow, answer me this: Is the NIH the sort of institution you want playing fast and loose with any law or court ruling that isn't blatantly, obviously unconstitutional or an instantaneous danger to human lives? I want NIH crossing their T's and dotting the shit of out their I's, for my own safety and peace of mind, and while I hope they fight this ruling (because stem cells will save lives in the long run) I'm grimly satisfied they obeyed it while it's legally binding.
to adult stem cells - you know, the ones that have actually led to productive therapies.
Embryonic stem cells are said to have a lot of "potential". Strange, by this time I would think they would have come up with something for all the hype made over them.
I refuse to allow the beliefs of anybody to get in the way of scientific research.
The end justifies the means.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
That one person's (or group of people's) belief in fairy tales should hold back progress that could save countless lives and easy the suffering of millions.
It would just get filibustered. A simple majority doesn't seem to cut it anymore.
We used to criticize the USSR because they politicized science.
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
As a biomedical researcher, I wouldn't want the fruits of my labor to be withheld from anyone who needs medical treatment on the basis of their ideology. I would, however, like to see more people living up to their putative beliefs by refusing to make use of technology derived from practices they claim to find morally objectionable. If you're opposed to stem cell research, then refuse any treatment based on such research; if you're a creationist, then refuse any treatment based on modern biology at all; etc. This applies outside the medical realm, too -- consider the number of people who bitch about open source on Slashdot, or more generally, people using the internet to complain about how terrible the internet is. Put your money where your mouth is, folks.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I think that is an oversimplification - everyone agrees that the intended ends (cures for diseases, etc) are desirable, its just that a small but vocal minority says that the means are bad because some book can vaguely be interpreted to say so.
"Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
Turn the argument around for a moment, though. Why must your beliefs mandate that another individual fund (via mandatory taxation) research they view as fundamentally unethical? (And yes -- there are other things taxes may pay for folks may find unethical... I have nothing but empathy for a true pacifist who has to help fund the War Department, etc.) Can you blame them for petitioning those who both impose the taxation and fund the research about their grievances (you know, participating in the democratic process and all)? If you feel they can be and should be outvoted -- get the law changed. If they can't and you want to fund it anyway, then don't use mandatory taxation funds to do so (fund it yourself, do it at the state level where you can get the law passed, etc.) The ruling isn't that the funding is unconstitutional -- you have reasonable redress here.
Given the wording of the law and the clear legislative intent, the decision seems to be legally correct. The solution here requires congress to act. An additional unfortunate detail is that the Democrats are completely spineless and so getting them to deal with this problem is going to be tough even though this majority of Americans support embryonic stem cell research (source- http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll010626.html).
As with abortion, it all comes down to your fundamental assumptions - pro-life groups (largely) view an embryo as human at conception. Pro-choice and ESC supporters view it as not yet human. Killing a human who has done no harm is morally reprehensible, as is restricting the actions of humans due to something less than human. Unfortunately, without a true shared premise to reason from, there is no way to settle this.
they need to get rid of that "agree to filibuster" thing they have going on.... if you want to tie things up for hours and hours, then by gum you should have to work at it and ACTUALLY tie things up for hours and hours, not just say "can we agree that we are going to filibuster this so we can all go home and go fishin'?"
the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
Because this is a "Christian" nation and their right to not be offended by things like cursing, nudity, homosexuality, other religious views mustn't be called into question. It's just a matter of extreme arrogance and self centered behavior. There's a lot of people that genuinely believe that it's their right not to have to share the planet with people that disagree with their religious views even if said religious views are fucked up beyond belief. Which is why abortion is wrong, but fertility drugs and IVF are perfectly fine. Even though a single instance of IVF kills more embryos that just about any single person's life time of abortions does.
I agree. The Democrats should call the GOP on their threats to filibuster. Make them do it!
Check out my world simulator thingy.
The end justifies the means.
I can't exactly tell what you are trying to say by pointing out the underlying philosophy... but I'd like to mention that I think you have correctly identified it, and that many people's worldviews seem to include believing that the end does not justify the means.
Of course, people then justify all kinds of actions by the end result, but most people seem to be willing to SAY that the end doesn't justify the means.
Except then the GOP gets a stump to stand upon. This is where C-SPAN causes a problem; all the rhetoric during a filibuster would be good for Republican PR, they could use the filibuster time to motivate their base, etc.
"Agree to disagree" acceptance of threatened filibuster stinks, I agree. But the other option is to give the Republicans the pulpit for as long as they wish. I'm not sure the Democrats want that to happen.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Very soon--perhaps even already--China will be the premier center of stem cell research in the world. They are making enormous advances, due to their strong economic position and their lack of being hindered by religious conservatives or a two-party system. Researchers will go there, all the intellectual work will flock to China because they can get their funding and have the collaboration they need. And the US will become a short-lived historical footnote, an intellectual backwater led by a corrupt plutocracy, filled with ignorant evangelical nutjobs and greedy corporatists. Americans are stupid, greedy, short-sighted, superstitious, easily cowed, lazy, obsessed with violence and sex, and fiscally irresponsible.
Make no mistake: I do not condone China's abhorrent record on human rights, politics, foreign policy, censorship, or the environment. I especially despise the way they have so brilliantly manipulated the US into conflicts with other countries and have essentially commandeered the global economy. But they have only done this because, again, Americans are too stupid and played right into the trap.
Except I don't know anyone against stem cell research. I am however aware of many people opposed to embryonic stem cell research and most of them would be horrified to learn that they were receiving treatment that derived from embryonic stem cell research (of course that won't happen anytime soon, since there are no treatments derived from embryonic stem cell research despite lavish funding of it by the state of California and several other states and municipalities).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Why? What do the Republicans have to say that would be convincing to anyone but their fellow travelers? I say let 'em get up there and display their stupidity for everyone to see.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
"Except then the GOP gets a stump to stand upon. This is where C-SPAN causes a problem; all the rhetoric during a filibuster would be good for Republican PR, they could use the filibuster time to motivate their base, etc."
So the hell what? Let the democrats motivate their base also! Present your arguments and then turn around and fight for them! It would be damn nice to get back to the days of the progressives actually fighting for their politics instead of just rolling over and playing dead.
d
all language nazi's will burne in heil!
Much of the objection is due to religion, religious types thinking we shouldn't be messing with stem cells and everything to do with life.
I thought it was because they thought embryonic stem cells came from human embryos which they believe to be humans, because they have decided at what point a human embryo is a human... whereas it seems the rest of the society refuses to answer that question, apparently putting it "somewhere" before birth... because nobody seems to think killing a baby post-birth is ok.
Yes, there are some who say that we shouldn't be "messing with [...] everything to do with life." There are people who say all medicine is bad. There are people who say that we came from aliens and that they have been trying to contact us but the government is blocking it. But I would raise a definite [citation needed] on your assertion that MUCH of the objection is due to should-not-be-messing-with-life ideas.
> Can you explain to me why dehumanizing is okay if the results are for the good of all?
All you have to do to "dehumanize" an Embryo is merely show a picture of one.
Do you even know what that term means?
Calling an embryo a person is much more of a stretch than calling a homosexual a non-person.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I think you can see from the adult (or from placental/umbilical) stem cell research being much less controversial (I want to say unopposed.. but I'm sure there's someone, somewhere that has some problem with it -- I haven't heard of any widespread objection, though) that if you removed the source of the ethical concern that there would be less resistance. Seems rather obvious, really.
But no, I disagree that there's a distinction here. Those who have an ethical issue with stem cell research that destroys the embryos can still disagree with funding it, regardless of what benefit society supposedly receives (in the same manner that while we may ask citizens to volunteer their lives for their country -- not many would volunteer others to benefit society. And this is one of the fundamental points of disagreement that makes this an ethical issue -- is an embryo at this point an "other"? Does that matter if so? Those who answer "Yes" and "Yes" are not going to support this no matter what benefit is claimed -- in the same way that (if they're consistent) they wouldn't support harvesting organs from prison inmates to better society, etc.).
From that ethical perspective any reduction of an individual or individuals to "property" to be disposed of by society as a whole is a regression of liberty (and really a return to a slave class) which outweighs the benefits to those who profit from the activity. As such, like the war protesters -- the activity from their perspective is NOT in the public's best interest.
Do I have to be a religious nutcase to object to breeding human beings to be used for spare parts and then discarded as trash?
No, but you have to be an ignorant fool to believe that's how it works.
Are you sure that monk was a creationist? Would he have said that Darwin is full of crap? Or would he have said that "Hey this Darwin guy is taking my research to the next step. This is pretty cool stuff!"
It seems to me you're effectively putting words into his mouth.
There are many "creationists" by your definition that only believed in it because it was the only known thing. The difference is those that vehemently say evolution is full of crap. I can understand the ones that say God helps steer the evolution that fits in with what we know about the universe. The ones that say God made it this way and things don't evolve are limiting God's capabilities, in my opinion.
Similarly they should all be crying how the world is flat and the sun goes around the earth, because that is what they believed in the time of Jesus.
ETHICS are indeed outside of biology. Are you suggesting that ETHICS has no basis deciding how we experiment in biology at all?
So the ends justify the means? To what end and by what means are you willing to gain knowledge?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You are using the word "creationist" in an absurd fashion, to describe everybody who existed before Darwin (or were his contemporaries). Most people here on Slashdot and in general use it to describe people in the *modern* era who reject the large body of scientific work that has followed from Darwin's work and that of some of his contemporaries. This evidence has been built up over the last hundred-and-fifty years or so, and is more-or-less impossible for a rational scientific person to reject at this point in time.
A young-earth-creationist is somebody who rejects more than just that, but also much of the rest of physics, chemistry, geology, etc. Those are the serious loons. But a few hundred years ago, plenty of scientists might have believed in a young earth - doesn't mean we'd call them "young earth creationists" in the modern sense.
The point is that in order to label somebody for rejecting something, they had to have had access to a similar body of evidence.
> Riiight... which is why the Catholic Church is such a proponent of IVF [catholicinsight.com].
Except Catholics aren't included in the term "Christian".
If you're not aware of this then you really haven't been keeping up with any of this stuff.
The fundie nutbags that try to declare a monopoly on the term "Christian" think that Catholics are going to hell just as much as they think atheists are.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I have no religious problem with embryonic stem cell research, just don't use my money (taxes) to do it.
That is fine, but realize that the "anti-abortion/anti-embryo destroying" voters cross party lines. There will be a significant number of Democrats that will not vote in favor. Politics is not just a two sided coin.
If they have the votes to filibuster, why waste everyone's time by making them go up there and read the telephone book?
Basically, because you have to stick your neck out more to actually filibuster vs. to refuse to vote for cloture.
Physically, because there is at least a little bit of an endurance trial to get up there and speak, and politically, because now there's video of you personally as a specific senator A) being so against the passage of a specific bill that you would rather read the telephone book for hours than allow a vote on it and B) being so against the passage of a specific bill you would rather make sure that the Senate could do nothing rather than vote on it.
Now, maybe Bill X is very unpopular in your specific state even if it enjoys support elsewhere. In that case you're still good to filibuster. In a lot of other cases, you're taking a much bigger political risk than is currently necessary as part of a filibuster threat.
Do you know what embryos we're talking about here? They're little clumps of cells that were going to be flushed down the toilet anyway.
Seriously, do you not get that? Here's a little sketch of where they come from: a couple of rich people walk in the door of a fertility clinic and say "doctor, we can has babiez?", the doctor is like "sure, let me do science to you", science is done to them, the couple say "okay no more babiez", and the doctor says "well now what do I do with all these extra fertilized eggs? do I give them to researchers for to science them, or do I throw them away?" and the parents are like "sure whatever, we has babiez to deal with now".
You're saying that they must be destroyed without science being done. Everyone else is saying do science and then destroy them.
Do you not see where there's no difference in eventual outcomes? Do you not see where this is a tremendous waste of potential?
So the hell what? Let the democrats motivate their base also! Present your arguments and then turn around and fight for them! It would be damn nice to get back to the days of the progressives actually fighting for their politics instead of just rolling over and playing dead.
You're basing this on the assumption that either side (now, I'm talking about the senators here) has ideas that they can defend. It's become pretty clear that the Democrats don't know how to run a government any better than the Republicans. There's a reason both sides have abysmal approval ratings (Democrats slightly better, but that's like saying horse poop tastes better than cow poop).
I agree with you, they should be forced into trying to filibuster, but I only say it because I would enjoy the sheer spectacle of it all, not because I expect either side to say anything remotely useful.
Qxe4
If it's that you don't believe an Embryo is a person, then I have to ask where it is that YOU draw the line, because right now no one has agreed on it.
I think birth is a pretty reasonable place to draw the line legally, given that most modern laws implicitly roll with that. For example, the date on which it's legal for you to drink isn't based on when you were concieved, when you entered the second trimester, etc. It's based on when you were born.
A bit of history: the laser was first theorized in 1917, by Albert Einstein. In 1947 Lamb and Retherford demonstrated the first actual laser. The first practical use of lasers that most people are aware of was the CD-Rom drive; the Yellow Book standards that described CDs were published in 1985. That's what, 68 years from theory to practice?
For comparison, research into stem cells started in the 1960s. You're complaining that no treatments have been derived from it yet? Despite the fact that biological research is far trickier than physics? Despite the fact that the funding for stem cell research in the United States has all but dried up?
Seriously, it's like some people don't understand self-fulfilling prophecies. If you stop funding stem cell research and focus on other things, of course you're not going to get results out of stem cell research.
I don't get it. If you have no moral problem with stem cell research than your opposition is to what exactly? More effective treatment for Alzheimer's? Possibly allowing a cripple to walk? Better treatments for cancer?
Would you rather all work be paid for and patented by large organizations who will then control who gets to benefit? "Sorry Mrs. Jones little Johnny's is most likely going to die of Leukemia. Yes there are some incredibly promising and successful gene therapies but you can't afford the price that Merck set for the treatment. No, no the actual treatment isn't that expensive but its like HIV drugs, big farma owns the patent and even though the marginal cost is low they get to set the price. Well yes insurance would have covered it but you don't have any, maybe you should have accepted the job as a corporate officer rather than a hotel maid."
I apologize for taking the argument to an extreme, but this person claims not to have a moral issue with the research (a position I can at least respect if not agree with,) rather they seem to have high school civics level view of the world that says the US federal government should not pay for anything. It's not like this is research for a malarial drug that will primary help poor black and brown people, this is research that has the potential to save the life of someone the poster knows and loves(even if it is themselves.)
What makes it so much worse is that since now being a Tea-Tard is acceptable and so many people agree with the bind mantra of no government spending this somehow got modded insightful.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If other people do not understand your ideas, whose fault is it - the other people for not understanding your ideas, or you for making your ideas unclear?
I mean, when you responded to my post you just made some vague noises about not doing something we'll regret, asked some relatively meaningless questions, and included an insipid quote from Jurassic Park (of all things). Whose fault is it, exactly, that we didn't immediately leap to the conclusion that you hold the (relatively extreme) view that modern in-vitro fertilization should be banned?
Further, slippery slopes work both ways; in your case, would you be willing to charge a woman with unintentional or negligent homicide because she miscarried? Would you be willing to mandate that all women do whatever it takes in order to ensure that they carry their babies to term, including doing things like banning the use of cigarettes and alcohol and heavy exercise by pregnant women? Because that's where your position, that life begins at conception, leads.