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."
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?"
There shouldn't be a need to weasel around this. I admin to being a Christian, but I refuse to allow the beliefs of anybody to get in the way of scientific research. These projects are important and the religious right needs to get off their damned high horse and let progress happen. These are the same people that years ago would have protested the use of antibiotics thinking that they would interfere with the divine will of their respective deities.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
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.
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
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.
> 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 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?
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.