Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Legalized in California 344

Posted by chrisd from the let's-clone-tony-soprano dept.
Stigmata669 writes "Against the wishes of the White House, it appears that Gov. Gray Davis has passed legislation to legalize embryonic stem cell research in California. The article sheds some light on the nature of this decision, and highlights the difference between this decision, and the continued ban on human cloning in California."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Legalized in California More

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Legalized in California

Comments Filter:

  • Christopher Reeve (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Alranor ( 472986 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @07:12AM (#4310377)
    I think he summed this up very well when he said

    "We've had a severe violation of the separation of church and state in the handling of what to do about this emerging technology,"

    and

    "There are religious groups - the Jehovah's Witnesses, I believe - who think it's a sin to have a blood transfusion. Well, what if the president for some reason decided to listen to them, instead of to the Catholics, which is the group he really listens to in making his decisions about embryonic stem cell research?" Reeve says. "Where would we be with blood transfusions?"

    from The Guardian [guardian.co.uk]

    • Re:Christopher Reeve (Score:5, Interesting)

      by technix4beos ( 471838 ) <cshaiku@gmail.com> on Monday September 23, 2002 @07:22AM (#4310399) Homepage Journal
      People seem to think that their bodies do not belong to them, for some strange reason. (to me.)

      It's like it's against some spiritual and holy sacrament to give blood to another person, consider donating organs, or even contemplate growing body parts from cells for various medical reasons.

      What's wrong with prolonging our species a little bit to ensure a healthy future?

      As an aside, I find it striking that as I read the days's news lately, and discussions about humanity's future, I can't help but recall tidbits from Star Trek's "Universe" and where we would be if not for the fertile imaginations of people who thought outside the box.

      Call it what you will, but ideas and experiments in moderation are not unholy, in my eyes at least.

      And with that, please have a nice day. ;)

      -Chris Simmons,

      Avid BeOS User.

      The BeOSJournal

      http://www.beosjournal.org [beosjournal.org]

      • Rational Bias (Score:3, Insightful)

        by quitcherbitchen ( 587409 )

        The ability to arrive at a sound moral decision plays on a delicate balance of faith and reason. Some people only know how to do one or the other and thus arrive on one side of the fence without understanding how other people can disagree.

        The majority of the Slashdot community includes people who are able to think objectively and logically. So it's not surprising to see most of these arguments here. Perhaps we could apply that same reason and thought to the opposing view? There must be some reason why a mass of people would oppose stem cell research...

        But I'm not the guy to answer that.

        I still don't get it when people explain the existence of God with "just because."

        • Re:Rational Bias (Score:2, Interesting)

          by tomstdenis ( 446163 )
          /me jumps over the other side of the fence....

          Its also just as easy to say "in theory".

          ---- disclaimer

          I'm of the type that thinks both "just because" and "in theory" statements are worthless. Provide logical support [e.g. lemmas, collaries, etc..] and you shall establish a valid line of thought.

          Tom

        • Re:Rational Bias (Score:5, Funny)

          by Citizen of Earth ( 569446 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @10:00AM (#4311067)
          I still don't get it when people explain the existence of God with "just because."

          It's not "just because"; God exists because The Bible says he exists. For proof that The Bible is correct, see The Bible.
          • ...we have the christians to thank for recursion.
        • The majority of the Slashdot community includes people who are able to think objectively and logically. So it's not surprising to see most of these arguments here. Perhaps we could apply that same reason and thought to the opposing view? There must be some reason why a mass of people would oppose stem cell research...

          The opposition arises because the embryo is seen to be an individual. That is what religious opinion on the matter boils down to, that this thing in question is an individual. And that means there is no ontological difference between the embryo and me. I'm just bigger.

          The masses aren't all coming from one side of the political spectrum either. There are Democrats for Life [democratsforlife.org] and Libertarians for Life [l4l.org].

          It is a little ironic that this is framed as religion vs science because it was really science that influenced opinion on the question of life. During the 19th century embryology was a new field and you had doctors that came to the conlusion that religion was wrong about life beginning at quickening (when fetal movement is first felt) and that the laws of the country were also deficient in that regard. It was the American Medical Association that went about trying to change public opinion and the laws. They actually didn't even get much support from churches at the time. But you'll notice that most of the laws overturned in Roe vs Wade came from this time. So maybe if the AMA hadn't gone around enlightening people in the 1860s then this stem cell issue wouldn't be an issue.

          I've helped to archive some of the AMA's stuff on the web [abortionessay.com]. The questions they posed are still very relevent and it's an interesting read. That's really where the whole issue began as I see it.

          • The AMA's campaign against abortion wasn't about enlightening anyone; it was about shutting down competition from non-AMA practitioners who were successfully "treating" conditions such as "obstructed menses".

            Most of the arguments against abortion in those times had to do with danger to the woman from e.g. the use of unsanitary instruments. Antibiotics wouldn't be available for the better part of a century. Now that the death rate from legal first-trimester abortion is a small fraction of the death rate from full-term pregnancy, all of these arguments (which are circumstantial, not moral) point the other way. Accordingly, the argument of the antis has changed. The AMA is mostly staying out of it, because they get the business either way and have no axe to grind (delivery pays better than abortions, but liability premiums for OB-GYN practice eats the difference).

            • The AMA's campaign against abortion wasn't about enlightening anyone; it was about shutting down competition from non-AMA practitioners who were successfully "treating" conditions such as "obstructed menses".

              I've heard that argument made but I don't buy it. If it were a matter of competition then why did they make it illegal rather than making it regulated such that only licensed doctors could "treat" such conditions. They didn't just make it illegal for the uncertified, they made it illegal for everyone.

              Most of the arguments against abortion in those times had to do with danger to the woman from e.g. the use of unsanitary instruments.

              That was definately a part, but the primary reason listed over and over again is the question of life. Another secondary reason was the fear of immigrants outbirthing the WASPS.

              Antibiotics wouldn't be available for the better part of a century. Now that the death rate from legal first-trimester abortion is a small fraction of the death rate from full-term pregnancy, all of these arguments (which are circumstantial, not moral) point the other way. Accordingly, the argument of the antis has changed.

              The argument hasn't changed at all. It is still primarily concerned with that question of life. The title from Horatio Storer's second book is still the defining question, "Is it I?"

              To me it seems you've read a few feminist overviews of the period. But really, read some of the primary sources. I'm not saying self interest didn't exist, as it may exist for stem cell scientists trying to obtain grants. But to pass off the whole Physician's Crusade as "self interest" is just false and too easily dismisses a very important part of history.

      • The real issue... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by gillbates ( 106458 )

        is not stem cell research, but in using unborn humans as a source for those stem cells. The church has no qualms about stem cell research so long as acquiring the stem cells does not mean killing an unborn human being.

        What the Church really fears is a time in which humans will be "grown" for their organs - that is to provide healthy organs for sick people. Using embryonic stem cells for research is not a trivial step in that direction.

      • Your comment has a few flawed ideas.

        1) While you commments about doing what you want with your body are partly correct, you miss the fact, that a) we're not talking about our bodies - we talking about the body of a human being. A child. A genetically identical to you and me life., and b) we can only do what we want with our bodies as long as it doesn't harm the rest of the society. Murdering our children has significant social impact.

        2) There's nothing wrong with preserving our species, but the whole point of this debate is that we're killing children in order to preserve ourselves. We're eliminating new life in order to squeeze a few more years out of the old ones. Seems rather inconsistant to me.

        Louis Pasteur prooved over 100 years ago that life doesn't come from non life. Life passes seemlessly from the mother and father into a child. Never does life stop and that zygote is just as human as you are (except that it wants to preserve life).

        If you want to experiment why don't you donate your living body to be hacked apart in the name of science :)

        Flame on!
        -Gallamine
      • It's like it's against some spiritual and holy sacrament to give blood to another person, consider donating organs, or even contemplate growing body parts from cells for various medical reasons.

        The issue is not with growing body parts from cells. The issue is where you get the stem cells. The current Embryonic source requires you to end a life in order to harvest the stem cells. THAT is what people are against. There are other methods to get stem cells from adults without ending a life that have been shown to produce at least as viable stem cells. Why not go that route?

      • Re:Christopher Reeve (Score:2, Interesting)

        by DavyByrne ( 30170 )

        People seem to think that their bodies do not belong to them, for some strange reason. (to me.)

        I think members of the so-called "religious right" have done a poor job of explaining their objections to such research and this has led to your misunderstanding. As someone who is against embryonic stem cell research, I would not say that your body does not belong to you. What I would say is that someone else's body doesn't belong to you. The fundamental principle behind my argument against stem-cell research is that people should not be used as means to other people's ends . I consider embryos to be people, so if you use an embryo as a means (via research) to cure someone else, I consider that an immoral act.

        If you'd like to use your own stem cells, from your own body to do research, please feel free. Just don't take them from someone else without his or her consent.

        As an aside, it seems to me that this is a principle many /. posters support in other contexts. How many of you fight against the limitations on personal freedoms that Microsoft, the RIAA, DMCA, etc. support? These personal freedoms all fall under the above principle.

        • that people should not be used as means to other people's ends. I consider embryos to be people, so if you use an embryo as a means (via research) to cure someone else, I consider that an immoral act.

          If you'd like to use your own stem cells, from your own body to do research, please feel free. Just don't take them from someone else without his or her consent.

          You leave two very important questions unanswered:
          1. Because you consider embryos to be people, I should be bound by your beliefs? Does freedom of conscience extend only as far as the right to agree with you?

            Ponder the consequences, starting with the tenets of some of the more radical animal-rights groups. If a large group of folks decided that cows and chickens were people, would you give up hamburgers and omelettes?

          2. An infant cannot give consent to donate its organs any more than an embryo can. However, the parents of dying/dead infants often donate their organs to save other people's children. This is where babies with biliary atresia (a congenital malformation of the bile ducts which is uniformly fatal) get their donor livers and another chance at life.

            Is that wrong, by your lights?

            If not, what is your argument against the parents of frozen pre-embryos (16-cell clusters) donating those cells for use in stem-cell research or treatments, instead of just throwing them down the sewer if they aren't going to be used? Keep in mind that the pre-embryo is dead either way, and that throwing away the pre-embryos is not at all different from the normal implantation failures of the human reproductive scheme.

          Just for your information, I have never seen a decent response to either of these questions from a member of the right-to-life persuasion. Feel free to be the first.

          • Because you consider embryos to be people, I should be bound by your beliefs? Does freedom of conscience extend only as far as the right to agree with you?

            So if someone does not consider black people to be people, should they be bound by other's beliefs?

      • It's like it's against some spiritual and holy sacrament to give blood to another person, consider donating organs

        The sects which consider these things a sin are interpreting a bible phrase, roughly "that shalt not eat of thy brother," to include trans-body medical practices. Just about everybody else thinks it's an anti-cannibalism rule. There weren't many organ transplants in the time of the Hebrews.

        But that's what you get for taking an elegant allergory literally.
    • An interesting point, but Jehovah's Witnesses do not represent a particularly large segment of the American population or their beliefs.

      Now if there were 100 million Jehova's Witnesses in America, this might be a relevant (and somewhat scary) comparison.

      Now I agree tha we cannot let religious dogma interfere with potentially life-saving/enriching medicine, but until there is sufficient evidence that embryonic stem cells can actually produce what many scientists and doctors theorize they can, I will be suspicious of it.

      • I agree, but the scientific community must not be forbidden from seeking that knowledge.

        It's like saying "I'm not going to let you research a cure for the common cold, but until you can prove that one exists, I won't believe you." And this is simply an illogical stance on such an important issue.

        -Nano.

      • Re:Christopher Reeve (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Jester99 ( 23135 )
        Now I agree tha we cannot let religious dogma interfere with potentially life-saving/enriching medicine, but until there is sufficient evidence that embryonic stem cells can actually produce what many scientists and doctors theorize they can, I will be suspicious of it.

        You do realize the irony inherent in your statement, don't you?

        Let me reduce it for you: "Until scientists research stem cells and prove that they're useful, I don't trust stem cell research to be a good thing."

        You're setting them up for failure!

        How can they prove to you that stem cell research is a good thing, if you don't let them research it ab initio?

        If stem cell research yields some technology which itself is a bad thing (I don't know. Creates an army of mutant freaks.), then that Bad Thing (tm) should be banned. However, one flawed application of a technology -- and especially the hypothesis of such an application -- does not invalidate the use of the entire class of research centered around it.
      • An interesting point, but Jehovah's Witnesses do not represent a
        particularly large segment of the American population or their beliefs.

        This is irrelevant, with respect to the argument of separation of
        church and state. 200 Years ago it was the majority view in the south
        that blacks were inferior and hence the concept of slavery was valid.
        We look back on that now with revulsion. So then if the majority view
        cannot over ride the documents that define the nation. Simply put, the US
        has a constitution that defines how the church and state interact.
        The issue of embriotic destruction is a religious one and should not
        be federally precluded.

        • Whether or not the beliefs are religious in nature or not, this country has always been a matter of majority-rule.

          I don't think President Bush's decision on this was motivated solely by his moral apprehensions. Rather I don't believe there was sufficient scientific evidence that this course of action is yet appropriate. Another reader commented that (as far as he/she knew) there has been little or no embrionic research done on animals.

          If I were the president, I'd certainly want evidence that something with such deep moral and scientific implications worked before I encouraged and/or spent taxpayers' money to fund such a program.

          • Remember, a lynching mob is pure majority rule in action. Quite a lot of people have absolute no moral problems at all with stem cell research. So when you say that there are deep moral problems with it, you're just projecting a specific prejudice onto the problem.
          • Whether or not the beliefs are religious in nature or not, this country has always been a matter of majority-rule.

            Who told you this? Please have them explain:

            1) The Electoral College
            2) The Senate
            3) Prohibition (note that a popular majority is not required for constitutional ammendment)

            There are checks and balances in the system designed to prevent The Tyranny of the Majority.
        • The issue of embriotic destruction is a religious one and should not be federally precluded.

          You know, the Christians also prohibit lying and murdering. (Yes, they're hypocrites, but we're talking about their ideals here.) That doesn't make laws against murder a religious issue.

          I agree with the conclusion that the government has no place prohibiting stem cell research, but if the best reason you can think of is "The Christians are against it, thus we must allow it!", then you really need to check your premises.

          --grendel drago
      • but until there is sufficient evidence that embryonic stem cells can actually produce what many scientists and doctors theorize they can, I will be suspicious of it.

        Hopefully European/other scientests can produce this proof for you, while they leave America in the dust. With cryptography and legislation, America seems determined not to be a techological leader in the 21st century.
    • Yeah. Let's use the opinions of Hollywood elite to teach us issues of morality.
    • Let's keep in mind that what the Bush decision was about was public funding for stem cell research.

      I can't say what anyone's values are here, but let's say for a moment that it was determined that we could cure cancer through extremely painful experiments on animals. It's safe to say that we hold different values on animals in pain vs. humans dying of cancer. Considering this, it seems reasonable at the very least that no one should have their tax dollars, which were taken without recourse, to fund something that is considered abominable to their values.

      If your counterargument is that tax dollars are taken everyday for things you consider abominable, I defuse your argument by agreeing with you ;). Vote libertarian.

    • Christians also don't believe in murder, so I guess we'll have to legalize that, too. Wouldnt' want to violate the separation of church and state.
    • That's entirely what it's not. Embryonic stem cell research involves murdering human beings. That's wrong. It has nothing to do with church and everything to do with the state. It's the state's business to prevent murder, especially of those powerless to defend themselves.

  • Irrational Liberal "Epistemology" Strikes Again (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23, 2002 @07:21AM (#4310391)
    This is yet another case of the liberals trying to usurp God's role, and failing pathetically. It's only natural that a group of borderline-psychopathic thugs and killers would get their epistemology so wrong as to conclude that they are the creators of the universe. They have utterly failed to check their premises, and the results are obvious. Only God can make a stem cell, and only the triumph of Ego in a Free Market can create lead to scientific work. The reason for this is that the dynamics of the Free Market force businesses to concentrate all their efforts on short-term improvements in shareholder value. This is known as "fiduciary responsibility". The excercise of this responsibility prevents scientists from wasting their time and funding on blue-sky garbage and pseudoscience like so-called "evolutionary" biology, and indeed most other forms of biology as well. Astronomy and high-energy physics are two more pseudoscientific jokes which will only everbe funded by a socialist system. The number of "astronomers" and high-energy physicists running around loose in any given nation is an absolutely reliable indicator of the number of death squads they have. The two are inseparable. Both are inevitable results of a socialist system. Free scientists are prevented from squandering their energies on star-gazing and the like, but enslaved scientists can waste their time any way they like, even on things which show little promise of profit in the near future. It's disgusting, and it's only one aspect of the socialist octopus which entangles our world in these benighted times.

    My logic is meretricious and my conclusions are indisputably indefensible. My facts stand on firm epistemological ground. You may draw different conclusions if you like, but only if you are insane. You may dispute my facts, but only if you are deluded. If you are rational and in touch with reality to any measurable extent, you will agree with me.
    • This must be one of the guys that think that open source is a new word for communism and that Stallman is pure evil... How funny that one of those guys happended to wander by /.
      I cannot say anything more than surf over here [addr.com]!
    • I have to say that that is the most wordy and eloquently put piece of flawed logic I have read recently.

      First of all you state that only God can make a stem cell when in fact this is not true. You made stem cells when you were in your mother's womb. The DNA in YOUR body contains the instructions on how to make a stem cell and you DID it while you were in the womb.

      Secondly you say that a Free Market requires that Scientists spend all their time working on science that has a point. Let me point you at some facts. If we had not had astronomers in the world then we would not have found out that the world was not flat. If we had not had astronomers then we would not have known how to get to the moon. If we had not tried to go to the moon then we would not have a lot of the technology that we have today, including some of the technology that you used to write your inane ramblings that I am responding to. Incidentally, did you know that there are a great many people who are Astronomers and who don't get paid to do it? They are not restricted by the "pressures of the Free Market"?

      Thirdly you go on to say that the number of Astronomers and High Energy Physicists running around free is a direct indicator of the number of Death Squads that country has. You say this with no backing of proof, either scientific OR epistemological. You just say that they come out of a Socialist System.

      Last you throw in your 'saftey' paragraph. The whole point of this paragraph is to say, "I can't prove any of this (like we didn't already know that) but you would be insane to think differently than I do", as if to scare people away from disagreeing with you.

      Now then, I have disputed your facts and I have come to a different conclusion than you have. You will probably disregard me as insane or deluded because of these facts.

      But before you stop reading I want you to try something out. It won't hurt you I promise. Ask yourself this question. Are you free to believe whatever you want, to say whatever you want, to do whatever you want? Or are you merely enslaving yourself to a set of beliefs that you admit are indefensible?

      It seems to me that you are not free. It seems to me that you have swallowed a giant dose of religious something or other that has caused you to do the equivalent of standing in the road and trying to disbelieve the truck that is about to run you over.

      I hope for your sake that you open your eyes and question your life more than this.
  • Knowing how well the federal government respects California's medicinal marijuana policy [freep.com], I'm pretty be pessemistic about California's ability to protected anyone who actually does invest time and money into such research.

  • Ahh, California! (Score:5, Informative)

    by jimhill ( 7277 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @07:23AM (#4310402) Homepage
    Between last week's pot handout in Santa Cruz and this, California is being quite the thorn in the side of Washington. Heh heh.

    (Minor civics quibble: governors don't pass legislation -- that's what legislatures do. Governors can sign, veto, or ignore. Whether ignoring means automatic passage or veto depends on the state.)
    • > Between last week's pot handout in Santa Cruz and this, California is being quite the thorn in the side of Washington. Heh heh.

      Yeah, but you know California's pretty fscked up when my first reaction to this story was "What? The stem cell lobby got an eGray [egray.org] account like Oracle and the refinery/dioxin lobby?"

      (Disclaimer: I'm in favor of unrestricted stem cell research. I'm just skeptical that Gov. Davis signs anything without a check from the relevant special interest.)

      In this case, it looks like something he's doing to point out that the opposing candidate (Bill Simon) isn't as pro-choice as he is. Stem cell research makes anti-abortionists froth and jump up and down, and Simon has to shore up the Republican base - just as Davis has to shore up the Democrat base.

      This fits in with the medical marijuana issue too. Pass a state law that has no effect (because it's trumped by Federal law), but it allows you to issue press releases that make it sound like you're doing something most voters favor.

      And given that such laws have no effect one way or another - that is, nobody wins or loses when they get passed - I suppose Davis is capable of signing them without a campaign donation.

      • Agree for the most part. Not sure who sent Davis a check on this one, but thank you.

        Pass a state law that has no effect (because it's trumped by Federal law)
        This is really a grey issue (no pun intended). Constitutionally, states have every right to pass a drug legalization law and it not be usurped by the fed. However, it will take a defiant and intelligent state AG to sue the Fed and take the matter to the Supreme Court. There... who knows what will happen. The Court is a funny animal and it's extremely difficult to determine how they will interpret this matter.
    • Yeah, well California is pretty f'ing pissed off that the feds sat an their ass while Enron and company turned our lights off last year and bled our budget dry.

      So now we've tipped over the marijuana laws, the stem cell policy, turned the tide on air quality laws, and are threatening to dump the SATs. Wonder if Dubya is suitably pissed off yet, or will we have to oppose a war in Iraq to shove him over the edge...
  • Crazy Californians. They'll legalize anything. :)
    • And about time too.

      I currently live in the Netherlands, home of legalized marijuana, prostition, and one heck of a public transportation system.

      It's quite refreshing after coming from Canada to find a culture that not only looks past such silly notions that the US seems to latch onto, but to find a culture rich in diversity, arts, technology breakthroughs, and best of all, humanity.

      The people here are downright pleasant. I mean it. Is it because the government lets them do what they please all day long? Not really... It's because they are mature enough to handle the decision making on these (related) matters, in an intelligent way.

      It's about time the US started looking past it's nose, and examined how other countries are getting it right, for a change.

      To Mr. Bush. Please put the guns away, and play nice with the other children in the sandbox.

      -Chris Simmons,

      Avid BeOS User.

      The BeOSJournal

      http://www.beosjournal.org [beosjournal.org]

      • Don't forget the dutch stance on euthanasia - an increasingly important ethical issue in palliative care medicine.

        -Nano.
        • I will freely admit to not knowing their stance (yet) on that issue.

          Care to point me in the general direction, with a friendly url?


          -Chris Simmons,

          Avid BeOS User.

          The BeOSJournal

          http://www.beosjournal.org [beosjournal.org]

          • Sorry, I thought it was quite widely known - Holland is the only country where euthanasia by a medical practitioner is permitted.

            http://www.euthanasia.org/dutch.html

            Although from reading that page, it seems more like it's a 'tolerated' practice than a commonplace decision. However, I think that the law has changed in the past 2 years to make it more so.

            -Nano.

  • USA Will Need It (Score:3, Informative)

    by e8johan ( 605347 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @07:29AM (#4310425) Homepage Journal
    This decision is a must if some uncureable decieses will ever become cureable.
    Also, in the recent debate a suggested solution was to use existing cell lines. The Bush administration assessed that Sweden would have twenty-two [nih.gov] lines ready, but in reality there are only four [nyteknik.se] (in Swedish... sorry!). Three at Sahlgrenska [sahlgrenska.se] in Gothenburg, and one at Huddinge sjukhus [www.hs.se]. This poses the question of how many lines there really are!
  • Chalk one up for the strong showing of early silient majority posts... Mostly anonymous conservatives cowards. What's wrong with being a conservative? Only one thing. You loose slashdot karma.

    I've been to amnio consultations. You wouldn't believe the hard sell they give you, making you feel it's a foregone conclusion that your baby is defective.

    The bottom line for most people is as follows:

    They would have no problem with stem cell research if you could prove or guarantee that it wouldn't drive up the demand for aborted fetuses.

    Taking one of the team.

  • history repeats (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by tanveer1979 ( 530624 )
    Church declared newton a heretic, and hanged scientists......

    Think if these people hadnt gone ahead would you still be posting on slashdot?

    Its not the regulars that take human civilation ahead.. its the rebels
    • Its not the regulars that take human civilation ahead.. its the rebels

      This isn't meant as a troll, honestly. But it seems in this day and age, your average Joe doesn't go to church and doesn't give a rats ass about the morality issues involved with just about anything.

      To paint the hysterical mom and pop who go nuts over stem cell research as 'the norm' is a little overboard. In my expererience, the majority of folks, espically the younger folks, see nothing wrong with this.

      It's gone to the point where the conservitive religious factions are the rebels.

      I guess it's a crazy wakeup call when you realize that most of America agrees with you.

    • "Because the people who are crazy enough to think
      they can change the world, are the ones who do."

      Quote from an Apple Computer commercial ;-)
    • Newton was NOT declared a heretic, you forget (or didn't know) that the Church of England was already well underway. They even changed the rules to allow him to take up a seat at Cambridge, he wouldn't swear the religous oath... so they dropped the requirement to do it. He headed the Royal Mint and lots of other top groups.

      Newton is a bad example. So in general is the UK, since the reformation the UK has been pretty relgion free (except Catholics as they kept trying to invade, and the behaviour in the UK there was very bad) but since we got rid of the church in Rome because the King wanted to shag another woman there isn't much ground to be relgiously intollerent.

      This "freedom" led directly to things like the Industrial revolution which was in a large part driven by people like the Quakers.

      Darwin was a Brit, and he wasn't persecuted for his beliefs either. The UK has no "Freedom of Religon" or even a constitution, but it is one of the least religous countries around. Hell Tony Blair is almost apologetic about being a Christian.

  • Why is this posted under technology? The article is more focused (obviously) on the legal aspects of this, which are only relavent in the US. Shouldn't this article have an american flag beside it?

  • Politics (Score:5, Insightful)

    by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @07:37AM (#4310458) Journal
    What Dubya did, was merely to attempt to please the Church more than he otherwise could (he could issue an all-out ban), but as a previous slashdot story has shown, his decision was just the "middle-ground" front he wanted to show to the public, and try not to alienate either side. He said, researchers can't use federal money on stem cell research on embryos other than those already started. Through the back, he snuck in a clause that said, as long as the embryos were obtained using private money, the rest can be done with federal money. (Kind of like saying: You can't have sweatshops in the US, but go crazy in Mexico, and we'll even drop the tarrifs!)

    As for Davis' move, he's always been on the left. He doesn't care about alienating the Catholic Church, since they're generally against him anyhow. I'm sure this was also a publicity grab. He's lost a lot of the support he used to have across the state, and he's facing a much closer election than he's faced in many years (against Bill Simon). If you are anywhere near CA, you can smell the mud as it flies through the air at either candidate. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is an issue that has been around for some time, and signing it now is absolutely perfect timing for suporting his campaign.
    • As for Davis' move, he's always been on the left. He doesn't care about alienating the Catholic Church, since they're generally against him anyhow. I'm sure this was also a publicity grab.

      Maybe he would like all of the researchers to move to California.
    • What Dubya did, was merely to attempt to please the Church more than he otherwise could (he could issue an all-out ban)

      It is totally unclear to me that he has this power. He doesn't set the law wrt stem cell research. He does control some purse-strings, most of which he yanked.

      Davis' move is quite good and I applaud it - but I think it is mostly about positioning himself for the presidential election in two years. He is positioning himself against Bush for energy deregulation in California, and now stem cell research.

    • Re:Politics (Score:2, Insightful)

      by fridgerater ( 595077 )
      There is another way of looking at the consequences of the ban on Federal funds for stem cell research. It gives private companies the exclusive opportunity to develop and probably PATENT methods to clone human tissues, organs, or body parts, if not entire humans. Talk about saving the gravy for private industry.

  • As this article will probably have attracted some researchers with an interest in neural repair, this seems like a good opportunity to ask the following questions:

    What's the state of the art when it comes to replacing brain tissue ? Are there any reasons to believe that newly added neurons can or cannot migrate to correct sites, achieve the correct functional state, and make the appropriate connections ?

  • Two cheers for Calif. (Score:3, Funny)

    by panurge ( 573432 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @08:21AM (#4310566)
    At least the Ca. legislature seems to know its economy is largely science-based. And I suspect that, like most advances in medicine, this will be a transient phase: stem cell research will ultimately end the need to use foetal stem cells.

    Why only two cheers? Because despite its advanced society, huge technical capabilities and social progressiveness, California has failed as yet to shoulder its world-wide policing responsibilities to bring about regime change in backward, religious fundamentalist places like Washington and Florida.

    • Umm... no, this decision has more to do with the fact that after Gray Davis' hopelessly inept handling of our electricity shortage the other year, most people would rather take a long hot bath in sulphuric acid than vote for him...

      This just something to endear him to the geeks before the election. It's not like he's getting any of the Moral Minority votes anyway, so what does he have to lose?
    • I know your're being humourous, but Washington has the second lowest church participation in the country, after Oregon. Utah is the highest.

      In conclusion, I'm tired of these small factions of radical crazies influencing the gov't so much.

  • No ban on this research (Score:3, Informative)

    by z_gringo ( 452163 ) <z_gringo&hotmail,com> on Monday September 23, 2002 @08:23AM (#4310572)
    Bush only issued a ban on federal funds being used for embryonic stem cell research. There was no effect on private resarch, nor, to my knowledge, state funded research.

    It also seems that Bush only took that position to appease some of the religious conservatives whose support he enjoys...

    • Bush only issued a ban on federal funds being used for embryonic stem cell research. There was no effect on private resarch, nor, to my knowledge, state funded research.

      Having worked in the field... federal funds touch everything. The DoT would require every road, public and private, funded by local taxes, etc., to be painted hot pink if a rule came out stating all road construction must be pink if it touched any federal money.

      The effect? The US is no longer the leader of the pack when it comes to this type of biology. Real research is flocking overseas for some time now.

  • Misleading comment (Score:5, Informative)

    by Comrade Pikachu ( 467844 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @08:37AM (#4310621) Homepage
    As much as I support this legislation, the article was flawed when it said of Christopher Reeve:

    "Reeve has said he has regained some feeling in his fingers and toes and urges further stem cell research as a way to treat paralysis."

    Which would seem to indicate that he has somehow already benefitted from step cell research. AFAIK, he hasn't. His recovery so far has been almost entirely the result of physical therapy. The cause of stem cell research is harmed by inaccurate reporting, even when it seems to support the cause. Objectivity and honesty are the only way to go. Let the other side make the unproven, irrational claims. In the long run they will lose the fight.
  • Not to engage in the dead-horse debate about abortion, it's important for people to realize there are *two* sides in the argument. Bush happens to be on the side the believes that a fetus has the spark of human life, and the rest of the position follows from that. If you want to argue whether or not that's the case, I don't want to hear it because it has nothing to do with the fact it's part of Bush's philosophy.

    Now, having that point of view, how can people that would roundly condemn Nazi medical experiments blame Bush for taking a position that acknowledges the other side, but refuses to give support to medical experimentation that results from a practice he believes to be immoral? Or should morality be completely removed from politics?
    • Bush happens to be on the side the believes that a fetus has the spark of human life

      Just as a counter to your statement a fetus and an embryo are not the same. Morality and politics should not be mutually exclusive although many religious advocates, and those who pander to them, would like to belive that morality is synonomous with religion, in that being agnostic or impartial is the same as amoral, which is clearly not the case. Along this train of thought the idea that Abortion up to full-term is legal while using cells from discarded embryonic tissue should not be legal is hypocritical, not amoral.

      so good for Bush and the Witch-hunter general, they pander to conservative populations of people for votes, they aren't scientists, and neither are the vast majority of government policymakers. i don't have a problem with peoples' beliefs, but when these beliefs are held by policymakers who, quite frankly don't know anything about the nature of that which they are controlling, and it impacts people who do-then i have a problem.

      Just think of all the bullshit legislation being kicked around regarding intellectual property, fair use, and other slashdot-type material, you know what?-it's the same damn thing, just a different medium.

      "there are *two* sides to every arguement" (if there were less then there wouldn't be an arguement now would there be?). This commonly used phrase simply promotes the borderline personality-type debate that far too many people engage. there are (almost) always more than two sides, most real questions don't have simple "yes" and "no" answers. While the research community is almost always concerned with the ethics of their work and the question is "how much" or where to draw the line, conservative simpletons tend to answer with "no, never" or "yes, always" and back it up with "just because" or "because it's always been that way." this type of thinking does a great disservice to humanity, it is counterproductive, arrogant, and fickle.

      ok, //end_rant

      sorry, but i feel very strongly about our kakistocracy...

      -tid242

  • Point of reference: I consider myself semi-relgious, but my mind is open.

    I kind of have a problem destroying a perfectly good embryo for the sake of scientific research.
    I consider enbryos life to the extent that, hey I was an embryo once, you all were. Taking that enybros chance at life away is like someone taking your chance to live away now. But others beg to differ and that's okay.

    It all boils down to how the process is done.

    The bill requires clinics that do in-vitro fertilization procedures to inform women they have the option to donate discarded embryos to research. It requires written consent for donating embryos for research and bans the sale of embryos.

    So in other words if the fertilization doesn't work right and/or the enbryo hasn't a chance for life, the women who go there now have the option to donate that embryo for research? Am _I_ reading this right?

    From the sounds of it, the embryo is just going to be tossed out anyway. Assuming i'm not reading the article wrong, this sounds perfectly fine with me.

    If it's about an option to donate eggs to a fertilization clinic to grow an embryo in a test tube to harvest for research, then it's no so clear to me. But i guess since these people are giving up their sperm and eggs, that's their right, they're the owners of them. I wouldn't say it's okay or wrong, I'm just not sure if I'd do it personally. I'm netrual about it.

  • How dare they defy Bush?! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Sloppy ( 14984 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @10:25AM (#4311277) Homepage Journal
    It is pure arrogance that the people of California think they should be able to govern themselves, especially if it involves defying our leader in a post-9/11 world. Besides, after Bush's landslide election, it is clear that his deep and well-considered philosophy has a mandate.

  • This can be read in another way (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mofolotopo ( 458966 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @10:56AM (#4311567)
    Just like California's medical marijuana laws and their opposition by the federal government, this can also be seen as an issue of....drumroll please.... tate's rights. I see it as quite an interesting way to bring the issue of state's rights to the fore, as the people who normally bang on about state's rights all the time (conservatives) are exactly the people who will HATE these two laws. It's quite interesting to see how (for some of them) their belief in the sovereignty of the states completely evaporates when the states are doing something THEY don't like. I'd like to point out that I said SOME of them, as I know there are people out there on both sides of the political spectrum who honestly believe that states should have sovereignty in most issues that won't flip-flop in this situation. I'm just saying that I know for a fact that there are a LOT that have.
  • If you want to see why I think pharma [politicalmoneyline.com] was pivotal in this move, check out the auction [egray.com] site.

  • Things Anti-Research folks often say: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MichaelPenne ( 605299 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @12:53PM (#4312448) Homepage
    Things Anti- embryonic Stem cell research folks say:

    Anti: But it's a human being! A microscopic brainless little human being and taking cells from it is murder!

    Pro: No, it's a mass of generic totipotent cells. If it makes it into a mother's womb, it might (about 1/2 fail to implant) become twins, triplets, or it might merge with another blastula to form a single individual. Or it might fail to implant and be expelled as waste. If we start declaring that fertilized eggs are human beings, do we then investigate every woman who has an early miscarriage for suspicion of murder or neglect (too much excercise, coffee or stress can cause a zygote to fail to implant)?

    Better to stick with our current definition of "human being": unique individual of the human species, rather than redefine human being to mean one or more or part of something that might become a human being if inserted in the right environment just to try and get a leg up in the battle agains the pro-choicers.

    Anti: Adult stem cells are providing cures while the liberals want to waste money on embryonic work just to upset the religious!

    Pro: Unipotent adult stem cells were discovered over fifty years ago, and only recently have treatments with them become safe and effective. Yet such treatments are frequently claimed by anti-embryonic stem cell folks to be proof that adult _pluripotent_ stem cells will be effective, even though no human trials have been conducted with adult pluripotent stem cells to justify this claim!

    Sadly, one can easily make the claim that adult stem cell research is a good thing without lying about embryonic stem cells research and therapeutic cloning. I wonder why folks who are interested in ASCR seem to constantly have to attack ESCR and SCNT? Doesn't their field of interest hold enough promise without cutting down the others?

    In an ideal world, where curing sick people came first, all three avenues would be fully explored for the best cures.

    Often the above is accompanied by something like:

    Anti: Adult stem cells are currently healing hearts from only a few injections!

    Pro: One form of disease has been alieviated in one patient. There has been no widespread set of human trials to show this will work in all cases, nor has there been comparative studies to see if this one method is better than methods using SCNT or ESCR. There is no scientific reason not to explore multiple methods for treatment to find the best one for various different forms of disease. Surgury stops some cancers, taxol stops others. It would be rather silly and unscientific to say since surgery is 70% effective agains cancer A, we should not fund other forms of cancer research, wouldn't it?

    Anti: This research will lead to growing children for body parts!

    Pro: No, that is not at all likely, even aside from the moral implications, it would be impractical. Instead, the specific needed organ cells are grown in the numbers required from pluripotent stem cells and injected, or the organ itself is grown on a synthetic mesh. No serious researcher in the field of regenerativ medicine is proposing "growing a clone for replacement organs", one only hears such nonsense from bad sci-fi writers and religious nuts.

    Anti: Stem cell therapy will be too expensive for ordinary people anyway!

    Pro: This is pure speculation. Any new procedure is expensive, including adult pluripotent stem cell work and certainly killing a person's immune system and replacing it with marrow stem cells grown in the lab. Fund the research normally and demand that the research is made available for everyone.

    The best thing about stem cell research is that it is about finding _cures_: new organs, new nerves, new brain tissue. Folks cured should be able to return to their lives, get back to work, etc. This is the ultimate dream of medicine: curing people of the ravages of disease and age, rather than just keeping sick folks alive for a few more years.

  • There is no cloning here. This has never been illegal, this is just a clarification.

    Sen. Deborah Ortiz authored the bill that states California will explicitly allow embryonic stem cell research, and allows for both the destruction and donation of embryos.

    The bill requires clinics that do in-vitro fertilization procedures to inform women they have the option to donate discarded embryos to research. It requires written consent for donating embryos for research and bans the sale of embryos.

  • Something that a lot of people seem to either not know, or conveniently forget, is that stem cells can be retrieved from sources other than embryos. Vast amounts can be harvested from placentas, even more than can be harvested from an embryo. They can also be retrieved from umbilical cords. Scientists have even been able to find useful stem cells from adult muscle tissue.

    The point is that this is not a medical issue. All of the research benefits from embryonic stem cell use can be realized through the use of stem cells that are done without the destruction of a single embryo.

    This is a pro-life/pro-choice issue. The question is one of whether you believe that a developing fetus/embryo is a person, and if its destruction is destroying a person.
  • As a (Northern) Californian, I have to say I'm scared at the completely banal uses to which stem research will undoubtedly be applied. Already we've got a mild toxin (Botox) being used routinely at parties to smooth out wrinkles in middle-aged women.

    Are we too far off from a day when Hollywood millionaires will keep a stockpile of organs on hand to replace when necessary? When months at the Betty Ford Clinic is replaced by a few whacks of a scalpel to replace a burnt-out liver?

    I'm well aware that this is a rather reactionary response, and I'll stop hyperventilating now. But I still can't help feeling deeply cynical when I flip the page from the tiny amount of space newspapers provide for hard science articles to the massive amounts of space devoted to celebrity, entertainment, fashion, and beauty.

Slashdot Top Deals

This restaurant was advertising breakfast any time. So I ordered french toast in the renaissance. - Steven Wright, comedian

Close