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."
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."
What if the scientists just charge for the research, but present an itemized bill that throws in the embryo destruction for free?
I'm mostly kidding, but isn't there some decent way to weasel around this?
... Backwards ...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Everyone who is against stem cell research should be unable to ever benefit from the results of said research.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Hyperbolic headline department.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Things always go smoothly. But seriously - the "debate" (can't believe there even is one) over creationism is harmful intellectually, but I doubt it is actively inhibiting research on anything. Stem cell research, on the other hand, IS being held back by religious groups that believe any fertilized embryo is a human. And I for one truly detest the role religion is playing in actively inhibiting research on diseases that are currently killing people. My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins - I can't find a clever way to say it, but why must this still not apply to religion?
"Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
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.
The ruling applies to cell lines derived from more recent embryos -- they're already destroyed and would have been anyway, but the cell lines are already harvested. It's a strange ruling since it doesn't prevent any new embryo destruction (and wouldn't anyway, since they're excess IVF embryos and are headed for the biowaste system either way.)
Nope. The Court has ruled. Unless and until a higher court reverses the ruling, it's binding.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
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.
That... or the knights who say NIH! have returned!
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
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.
That's not exactly the problem. It what happens after the Egg + Sperm stage. The some magic occurs and you have a proto human that various and sundry groups are trying to give full human rights to. Exactly when the embryo becomes legally human is the issue. Not whether or not you can pretend that your travels to the darker side of the Internet is somehow helping the human condition.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
That's missing the point entirely.
This is more or less the same debate as over early abortions and chemical contraceptives, it's about when your genetic material becomes an independent and legally protected person. Unless you're suggesting that the libertarian approach is to let people sell their children thus making the question irrelevant, you need to set some defined boundaries of personhood and embryohood.
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).
Why is everyone making a big stink about embryonic stell research anyways? Adult stem cell research appears to show a lot more promise and doesn't have all the abortion political baggage tied to it. I don't understand the Obama Administration's stance on this; they spend a lot of political capital on a science that is decades away from producing anything real when a comparable science, Adult Stem Cell research, could be supported without expending almost any political capital.
Consider the other side of the question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
Where do we draw the line? It is not an easy question, and is not easily answered.
The doctors who did these experiments thought that they knew where to draw the line. Humanity decided that they were wrong.
Awesome, this discussion is along the lines of "Embryonic stem cells will cure all disease!" Research on things we can't even do in rats, huh...
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Your two implications are inherently self contradicting. If, as you imply in your oh so clever "Osama, Obama" inference, Obama is a closet conservative Muslim, then he would object to your second inference. Since conservatives Muslims, like conservative Christians, are generally anti-abortion.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
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.
Couldn't have said it any better myself. ... wait ...
There are lots of countries more than willing to fund research like this.
HTTP/1.1 400
Ideology-testing for anything and everything is really, really stupid. It is mean-spirited and spiteful, as well as impossible to enforce. Let's suppose, just for fun, that the law is changed (as it will be) and federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is allowed. The people whom you wish to deny treatment are now having their tax dollars taken from them to do research they disagree with. Will you still deny them treatment? What if someone is opposed to war. Would you deny them any medical treatment that was advanced or created during wartime for the purpose of treating soldiers? That might include you, or a loved one. Suppose you are on the brink of foreclosure and a millage increase is proposed for schools or the fire department. You vote it down because any tiny increase in your tax burden would push you over the edge into foreclosure. Should your kids be denied access to the schools? Should the fire department pass you by in case of an emergency?
Grow the hell up. We live in a democracy. Some times things will go your way, some times they won't. Deciding to punish people who disagree with you is a really good way to lead to civil strife and violence.
they wouldn't need federal funds to finance it, private corporations would foot the bill.
there has been more advances with adult stem cells anyway
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
This is an example of the system working as it should. I don't agree with the court's ruling, however given that they have authority in this matter, their ruling needs to be obeyed until it is overturned. This could be upon appeal, it could also be through a legislative act (I haven't read the ruling but it may well say that it isn't allowed under current law, not that it is constitutionally prohibited or something).
Whatever the case, rule of law applying to the government is important. It is important that one branch of the government not be allowed to ignore the lawful authority of another. This was something that many people really jumped on Bush for. Well guess what? It isn't any more ok to do it when you think it is right or "The ends justify the means," or whatever. Bush thought the same, he just had a very different philosophy from most on Slashdot.
So while I'm hopeful that this ruling is overturned, I am happy to see the NIH complying with it. Rule of law is a real important concept in our society.
I don't know if this is intended to be insightful or snarky, but I am totally on board with defining an embryo to be human when it can survive without its mother (even if it gets medical assistance). At this point, I will accept all arguments for not aborting, but not prior to this point.
"Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
Excuse me, but your generalization of "all religions" opposing stem research is false. I hear this all the time, when actually you meant fundamentalist American Christians. There are many Christians that I know who are not opposed to stem cell research. I am a Muslim myself and I am not opposed to stem cell research as in Islam, a fetus is only considered "online" after 120 days of conception, meaning before that it is not yet fully human. Having said that, I am more comfortable if more focus is given to research on adult-derived stem cells but I do not object to embryonic stem cell research as long as it is obtained from embryos that are less than 4 months of gestation. So please, next time, qualify your statements when damning any religions or any groups of people for that matter or you will commit the same behaviour of the very people you despise. Like it or not, religion plays an important part as a checks and balance mechanism to scientific progress. Religion provides another voice in the ethical debates on any new technology. Scientists (I am a microbiologist myself) are prone to jump into any new breakthrough without thinking of the larger consequences. As in everything in life, there are always give and take.
Yes, it's a valid question.
No, we don't seem to have a consensus answer to it. Answers are "at conception" vs. a squishy "don't know but that's not it".
Not long ago another country was derided for terminating 12 million of what were not legally humans.
Maybe we shouldn't be funding the termination of what reasonable people differ over calling "human".
Not a slope we want to start sliding down, especially as we value _individual_ rights. Maybe the person being terminated would like a say too.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
BTW the same goes for marijuana legalization - just hold the damn referendum already and get on with other things.
Or, since this is in USA, remove the federal choke on the topic and leave it to the individual states - there are worse things already at the state level (IIRC: minimum marrying age? drinking age?)
-- Sig down
a valid, non-religious reason not to experiment with embryonic stem cells? Hey, I'm just asking questions here...
How would they know? They haven't tried. As the GP said, the Democrats are spineless. The Republicans threaten to filibuster, true, so make them do it. Introduce the bill and say "Try it assholes." Maybe they do actually filibuster, but they have to keep it up for it to work. Maybe someone breaks ranks, maybe they get tired and waver. Also, maybe it makes them look like jackasses and loses them votes. It won't with the hardcore righties, of course, but then you aren't concerned with them they always vote the same way.
However just backing down at the threat is spineless and ineffective. I am sick and tired of the Democrats whining that, despite having a near supermajority (59 seats) they can't get anything done because of the "Evil Republicans." Fuck you, that is a bullshit excuse and you know it. If you actually try, and they actually successfully stop things, then ok there is some legitimacy to that. However they just back down and don't try a damn thing.
Change the law. As for this Filibuster nonsense, my fellow Hard Core Republicans talk trash, but they can't back it up.
Problem is, it's also "speciesist" to swat a fly because it annoys you (you wouldn't kill a person for the same offense), let alone getting into whether or not it's wrong to eat, say, an octopus.
Plenty of folks I would send to the grave because they annoy me or piss me off. It ain't no speciesism that stops me, but not liking prisons and death rows that stop me.
If I buy a fetus did I in any way cause the abortion? What a leap. The person that performed the abortion is the only person responsible for the abortion. That includes the Almighty Himself as He aborts quite a few Himself.
From my understanding, embryonic stem cell treatments are going to be genotype specific. This means that you need a tissue match in order to make use of such a treatment, i.e., if not your stem cells then someone who is very close genetically.
So what? Well, if you want production-line embryonic stem cell treatments then you are going to need a way to produce an embryo with the same DNA as the patient you are treating. Not impossible today but moderately difficult. It also opens the door to something that we have so far managed to avoid and has all sorts of nasty side issues - human cloning. You see, if you can manufacture embryonic stem cells to order, then you can manufacture embryos to order as well. And that means you have successful, viable human cloning.
Do we really honestly want to go down that road? Do we need an everlasting supply of Bill Gateses? Because I can assure you that if the process is there and it works some ultra-rich people are going to take advantage of it. Maybe not Bill G., but how about Kim Jong Il?
Yes, I think it is probably a good question about when exactly it is reasonably to kill off a developing (potential) human life. We had a judicially established value (24 weeks) for a while but it is way, way too far along for current medical techniques. At conception turns the switch off on nearly all reasonable and reliable birth control methods. We need something that people can at least agree on even if it isn't a perfect answer.
But embryonic stem cell treatments are not dependent on this decision. I'd say anything that requires human cloning to be able to be effectively used needs to have the human cloning issue decided long before we should be going down the road of even researching embryonic stem cell treatments.
I heard you like "Candy" and "Ice Cream". Just substitute "Penis" for "Ice Cream" and you will see why substituting something only tangentially similar to something else in a sentence is a bad idea.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Troll really? I thought the sarcasm was obvious.
One of the more irritating things about this topic in general, is that some liberal-leaning people getting all up in arms about
[The religious fundie anti-science idiots blocking research into stem cells].
This is particularly ironic, given that it shows the complainer's complete lack of scientific education themselves.
"Stem Cell research" continues. Great things continue to be done, in the realm of stem cell research.
It's only "Embryonic" stem cell research that is affected by this.
A rational, scientific person should then be asking the question, SO WHAT? !
Most of the interesting stem cell discoveries, have happened outside of embryonic research. There has been almost nothing of interest discovered in that subset of the field, either inside, or outside of, america.
type1 diabetes cure, from REGULAR stem cells:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article1637528.ece
And there's also stuff like this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1826-ultimate-stem-cell-discovered.html
"The work is very exciting," says Ihor Lemischka of Princeton University. "They can differentiate into pretty much everything that an embryonic stem cell can differentiate into."
Similarly, in 2007, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/genetics/2007-11-20-stem-cells-skin-cells_N.htm
These days, embryonic stem cell research is really only of critical, "must have it" interest to those groups that wish to pursue cloning and other nasty things.
(eg: liberals wishing to bash non-atheists about something, and abortion clinics getting worried about their funding)
IMHO a fertilized embryo has only the potential to become a human organism. But it in itself is not one. Trying to draw the line can be tricky though, as I would also say that once the fetus has a brainstem and brain that governs the heart, it is a human organism. Even so, I would tend to support the right to chose, as the fetus is inside the mother, and as such its rights cannot be protected without violating hers.
Exactly when the embryo becomes legally human is the issue.
You're not a person until you're self-sufficient.
person=/=human Legality of when an embryo becomes a person is already established by the judiciary as "upon birth".
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The extra embryos are made because it's cheap insurance to do so. The choice you want (which is "implant all the embryos that are created") isn't going to happen.
Once you have the extra embryos that are no longer needed, you have two choices: 1) throw them away, 2) do science on them and then throw them away.
How is option 1 better than option 2?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't know if this is intended to be insightful or snarky, but I am totally on board with defining an embryo to be human when it can survive without its mother (even if it gets medical assistance). At this point, I will accept all arguments for not aborting, but not prior to this point.
For some around here that's probably around 20 years, I think you need a better definition.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Sure it's on the wrong side according to what I think should be done with research.
But it's about time the executive was reminded that the legislative branch out-ranks it in a lot of areas.
It is so much easier to just say "both sides suck equally" than it is to actually think and take some personal responsibility for your choices.
Under the last 1.5 years of Democratic rule, we've had a landmark overhaul of health care, responsible wind-down of the war in Iraq, refocusing of military energy against people who are actually our enemies, wall street reform, credit card reform, economic stimulus, hate crimes prevention act, student loan reform, funding for energy and science research, and nuclear arms treaty. We've also seen a functional government response to disasters (flooding in TN and oil spill). Oh, and we've managed to repair this country's image in the world's eyes for the most part.
Definitely not perfect, but not that bad considering the state the country was in that he inherited.
The previous 8 years? we had an illiterate cowboy who couldn't figure out which country to shoot at, turned the entire world against us, let people drown to death due to a massive mismanagement of Katrina, pardoned political hacks for outing covert CIA agents, oversaw a doubling of the federal debt and the most massive economic collapse since the Great Depression. Oh, and the country that guy inherited had no outstanding wars and was running a budget surplus.
I guess someone may have noticed that ESC isn't the only method of harvesting stem cells. But then it's the only one that can cause such an uproar. Would there be something wrong with investing the time and money into alternatives? I think maybe it would be worth it... gk
you need to set some defined boundaries of personhood and embryohood.
to quote Bill Hicks: "You arn't a person until you are in my phone book"
you don't eat crackers in the bed of your future--or else you'll get all scratchy
I doubt that was meant as a flame
Not Invented Here