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?"
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.
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.
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.
By your logic:
Cancer has been researched for decades. People still die from cancer. Therefore, the research was pointless.
As another point - many times research bears no fruits initially. Just because there haven't been any results yet doesn't mean there will never be results
.
"Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
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.
Why must your beliefs mandate that another individual fund (via mandatory taxation) research they view as fundamentally unethical?
I think the answer has to simply be: that's where we've chosen to draw the line in our Constitution.
That is to say, we've set it up so that (in theory), the majority doesn't get to take your individual rights away, but they do get to decide what we collectively spend money on. (And in that context, I don't consider anyone to have a right to not have their tax dollars spent on something the majority agrees with, excepting, of course, when it abridges another individual right.)
Overall I think that strikes a pretty good compromise between a government that can't do anything (even when it should) and a government that can do too much. It's not perfect, but it beats any alternative we've tried so far.
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.
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.