Obama To Reverse Bush Limits On Stem Cell Work 508
An anonymous reader sends this quote from the Associated Press:
"Reversing an eight-year-old limit on potentially life-saving science, President Barack Obama plans to lift restrictions Monday on taxpayer-funded research using embryonic stem cells. ... Under President George W. Bush, taxpayer money for that research was limited to a small number of stem cell lines that were created before Aug. 9, 2001, lines that in many cases had some drawbacks that limited their potential usability. But hundreds more of such lines — groups of cells that can continue to propagate in lab dishes — have been created since then, ones that scientists say are healthier, better suited to creating treatments for people rather than doing basic laboratory science. Work didn't stop. Indeed, it advanced enough that this summer, the private Geron Corp. will begin the world's first study of a treatment using human embryonic stem cells, in people who recently suffered a spinal cord injury. Nor does Obama's change fund creation of new lines. But it means that scientists who until now have had to rely on private donations to work with these newer stem cell lines can apply for government money for the research, just like they do for studies of gene therapy or other treatment approaches."
Re:Proven to kill... (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed, and now that a reliable method of making stem cells WITHOUT KILLING has been invented.
Yes, precisely! There are proven stem cell treatments accomplished without killing human embryos:
Re:Proven to kill... (Score:5, Informative)
"Reversing an eight-year-old limit on potentially life-saving science..." Currently unproven to save even one life, but proven to destroy human embryos.
To back up my post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell#Embryonic [wikipedia.org]
Re:Didn't Bush restricted ALL stem-cell science? (Score:5, Informative)
You were 'told' wrong. The article is correct. There was no blanket ban on stem cell research. Just no govt funding of new embryonic stem cell research. Fed funding for other stem cell research was ok, as was private funding for any stem cell research.
Re:Didn't Bush restricted ALL stem-cell science? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
The point of lifting the ban is to allow federal funding of research on real stem cells.
The research itself was never banned, and apparently thrived on private funding.
It's not the pregnancy that's aborted (Score:1, Informative)
If life begins at conception, then even the harvesting of zygotic embryos is antithetical for anti-abortionists.
How can a pregnancy be aborted if there is no pregnancy at all?
"Abortion" in this context doesn't necessarily mean that a pregnancy is aborted but that the life of a conceived but unborn child is aborted.
Re:Didn't Bush restricted ALL stem-cell science? (Score:5, Informative)
You seem to imply that George W. Bush actually championed the cause of embryonic stem cell research. He *vetoed* the bill that allowed federal funding for embryonic stem cell research [with new cell lines beyond the already available lines -- fewer than 20?].
This reminds me of an assertion that George W Bush made in one of the debates with Al Gore, that he [Bush] got the legislation passed on Patients Bill of Rights as governor of TX. However, the truth is that he vetoed that bill, the legislation then overrode his veto, and then he claimed credit for signing it.
S
Re:If stem cells are so great? (Score:3, Informative)
Bush's ban actually did more good than harm (Score:3, Informative)
because it forced researchers to find other viable sources of stem cells. Several studies have noted that embryonic stem cells have a high incidence of becoming cancerous. Stem cells from other sources have a lower incidence.
Re:Proven to kill... (Score:2, Informative)
This means that the government is now going to pay for it.
Re:Why? (Score:2, Informative)
The research itself was never banned, and apparently thrived on private funding.
If by "thrived on private funding" you mean "many scientists left the United States and went overseas" then yea, embryonic research "thrived" during Bush's Administration.
Re:When was stem cell research ever "restricted"? (Score:5, Informative)
The last administration refused to SUBSIDIZE it, and that's all. Researchers have been under no restriction whatsoever to do any of this research, as long as they're not sucking off the taxpayer teat for their funds.
...
However, are we REALLY so drunk on "stimulus" spending for everything under the sun these days, that refusing to subsidize a particular item means that item is actively "restricted"?
I was reading an article about a research facility that had to run parrallel labs.
One to deal with adult & federally approved embryonic stem cells
And one built entirely from private funds to deal with non-approved embryonic stem cells.
The head of the lab said the rescindment of Bush era policy was a great relief because they no longer had to maintain an expensive and artificial wall between their efforts.
Re:It's not the pregnancy that's aborted (Score:4, Informative)
"Abortion" in this context doesn't necessarily mean that a pregnancy is aborted but that the life of a conceived but unborn child is aborted.
This assumes that
A) an abortion can happen outside of a pregnancy
B) a conceived "child" made up of less than [arbitrary number of cells] = life.
C) an [arbitrary number of cells] that was never, is not, and won't be implanted in a womb = unborn
Not everyone would agree with those two assumption. And I don't know of any legal or dictionary deifinition that assumes an abortion can take place anywhere other than in utero.
Trying to change the definition of a word in mid-discussion makes the entire enterprise pointless.
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:3, Informative)
Real Christians (I am not one) don't rationalize like this. They help the poor and the ill, and are for the most part very nice people.
Unfortunately, there are very few of them, particularly in politics.
Re:Didn't Bush restricted ALL stem-cell science? (Score:3, Informative)
You were told incorrectly. Bush was the first President to allow Federal funding of fetal stem cell research ever. So the rancor is not about whether he "allowed" it, but that he didn't walk into a brand new, unproven field of research with a blank check and no strings attached.
Re:It's not the pregnancy that's aborted (Score:2, Informative)
Kind of like how you're aborting a child by allowing a woman to have her period and not impregnating her first?
Having a period (for a woman) or laying an unfertilized egg (for a hen) means that no sperm penetrated an egg, ergo no conception, ergo no new diploid organism to abort.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly. The State of California had their own stem cell research [ca.gov] going on during the federal funding ban.
It would be nice if I had a line item veto on my IRS 1040. That way I could go in and veto items that I found morally objectionable. It would nice if I didn't have to fund elements of a government that go against my beliefs. Oh well... they've got the guns.
JOhn
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
> If 'pro-lifers' aren't up in arms about fertility clinics it is simply ignorant for them to be up in arms about stem cell research.
But they are up in arms about that. At least, the Catholics are.
If there isn't a massive outcry, it's because a lot of people honestly don't know what happens in fertility clinics.
And didn't you see the fuss over the 'octomom'? You may have noticed that her rationale was that she didn't want to throw any of them away (though her method for avoiding that was dangerously irresponsible).
Re:Mod Parent Up! (Score:3, Informative)
Foregoing Powers such as:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Maybe you should learn to read before you go on the attack. Laws to uphold copyrights and patents are necessary and proper. Federal funding of research is neither.