Draft Stem Cell Guidelines Threaten Research 206
Death Metal suggests we peruse a piece up at Wired on how the Obama administration's draft guidelines for stem cell research could invalidate hundreds of cell lines. "Under the Obama administration's proposed rules for funding embryonic stem cell research, hundreds of existing cell lines could be ineligible, even those that qualified under President Bush. The guidelines were written by the National Institutes of Health and are currently in draft form and expected to be finalized in July. But in their current state, they restrict funding to stem cell lines produced according to new rules that are only now being established. Few existing cell lines will meet those requirements. 'The so-called Presidential lines aren't suitable for actual medical application,' said Patrick Taylor, deputy counsel at Children's Hospital Boston, who criticized the NIH guidelines in a paper published Thursday in Cell Stem Cell. 'But we're talking about many, many more lines. The new lines were created with extensive ethical oversight. They're at stake here.'"
And... (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is why I was so cynical about the election. It's the same old business as usual.
Silly question (Score:3, Insightful)
Why can't the ethical debate be side stepped, by using cord blood cells? I never hear this mentioned when the topic of federal funding for stem cells comes up. I figured someone here could explain the pros and cons of these cells from a research point of view.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
so much for getting government "out of" science... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be better to really get the government out of science altogether and let the actual scientists decide what to research instead of having some politically and/or religiously motivated bureaucrat making those decisions for them? Federal funding has always come with politically motivated restrictions. When Obama said he was getting the government "out of" science by increasing governmental funding I couldn't help but roll my eyes.
compromise vs progress (Score:1, Insightful)
If you don't like the requirements . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
. . . come up with your own funding. It's not as though embryonic stem cell research is illegal.
Re:its called (Score:5, Insightful)
So, the previous consent forms conflict with the new consent forms, rendering most cell lines unusable. Sounds like the DRAFT needs to add a grandfather clause. This isn't that big of a deal other than it's sloppy standards writing. Good on Wired for bringing it up so that it can be fixed.
They needn't be abandoned (Score:4, Insightful)
Private and public companies can still conduct research on them, and several states (notably California) have alternate stem cell research funding programs available, with less stringent guidelines.
The government (not merely the Obama administration) is in a tight spot between those that want absolutely no research conducted on embryonic stem cells, and those that want to follow where the science leads them regardless of tricky ethical considerations.
I think the administration's position is a decent compromise. Plus, it is a foot in the door to loosening restrictions further. In this particular area of research, I feel a conservative (in the literal sense: resistant to change, hesitant, deliberate; NOT the political, neocon meaning), incremental approach is best until we have a good sense of what we are dealing with - the incredible benefits and the awesome risks. This grasp and understanding must be pervasive, too, not just within the small cadre of cutting-edge researchers, but also in the minds of policy-makers and the general public who would be funding this research.
Re:so much for getting government "out of" science (Score:4, Insightful)
The taxpayers absolutely have the right (under a Democratic system) to ensure expenditures of those funds are in line with their needs, values, etc. The elected officials properly make political decisions regarding spending taxpayer money--as it should be.
For better or worse a large number of those tax payers are going to object that the expenditures of these funds don't match their values regardless of what you do. Hence why it would make more sense to get the Government out of it altogether and let private capital fund this research.
Re:Actually (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you take the politics out of the science when you hold the science hostage to political considerations to get the required funds?
Re:And... (Score:3, Insightful)
But you'll find the average Slashdotter much more heavily invested in Doritos and Bawls than in sex (at least, the varieties that involve other persons).
I find the opposite is true. Sex is like oxygen. When you are getting enough of it, it's not a big deal.
Re:And... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well of course no matter who you elected it was by and large going to be business as usual (yes, Ron Paulians, even if that long shot had occured).
But what I'm not seeing is how this is actually the same. I RTFA (gasp) and it seems the issue is that the new rules include informed consent requirements for egg donors that the old lines, despite being collected under informed consent standards of their own, don't meet the letter of the new rules, which are applied retroactively. The new rules were drafted by the NIH, who said that they estimated the new rules would make 700 old lines available for research that weren't before. A number of researchers are saying that they don't think that's the case and many of the old lines would not meet the new standard despite being collected ethically.
So which seems more likely:
- NIH really intended to make all those old lines available, but botched the legalese, which can be fixed by loosening the retroactive requirements while keeping the new requirements for new lines or various other changes.
- NIH was lying and is trying to quash stem cell research "just like Bush, business as usual" by disqualifying these old lines, while simultaneously allowing arbitrarily many new lines to be created using standards that are qualitatively if not technically nearly identical to the old ones.
The second just doesn't make much sense to me. Why bother lying when the practical effect would be obvious and nobody can really do anything about it anyway, why even display the draft rules rather than just put them into effect, why allow new stem cell collection under standards nearly identical to the old if the goal is to quash it entirely? Why's Obama trying to quash stem cell research anyway? Pressure from the religious right? I don't get it.
Re:At Least These Concerns Were Based On Ethics (Score:5, Insightful)
For the same reason I think the genetic material in the condom I threw away is "mine", and would be upset if someone used it to procreate without my consent!
Go ahead and make a property rights argument about how I don't legally get to say what is done with my stuff that lands in the landfill. Who cares. This is about ethics, and I for one am glad that the medical research profession takes ethics into consideration.
Re:so much for getting government "out of" science (Score:4, Insightful)
They might object but they will have been represented. That is the key difference. If the political leaders truly, routinely make decisions against the majority then they will no longer be the political leaders.
The tyranny of the majority is just as insidious as other kinds of tyranny. When the Government takes my money and uses it to fund things that I have moral objections to I have no recourse. When private capital does it I can choose to invest my funds with a different firm.
Re:so much for getting government "out of" science (Score:4, Insightful)
Taken to it's logical conclusion, this is merely an argument for anarchy. Say I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons, and I don't want my tax dollars spent encouraging or enabling people to eat meat. Consequently, I don't think the government should take my money and use it to fund stuff like health inspections at slaughterhouses or meat packing plants, etc. because that encourages people to eat meat. Also, I'm a religious fundamentalist and believe that I must literally cleave to the proscriptions in Leviticus, meaning I also don't want the government doing anything that involves shellfish, pork, or garments with more than one kind of material in them. And finally, I'm a pacifist and believe that all violence is wrong. Therefore, none of my money should be spent on the military; for that matter, I don't want that money going to my local police force because they carry guns and nightsticks.
Eventually, you'll find someone who has an objection to everything. So then, anarchy, because there's nothing at all you'll be able to find the government can fund and not run afoul of someone's ethical concerns.
Re:And... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this will hard for you US'ians to accept but it's a proper role for Government to regulate what you can eat when your obesity rates are driving up the cost of medicine.
Bzzt, no, it's not a "proper role" for Government to protect me from myself. If my insurance carrier wants to penalize me for a being a fatass then all the power to them. It's none of Washington's business.
Re:so much for getting government "out of" science (Score:3, Insightful)
My brother works for the BFRL [nist.gov] at NIST [nist.gov]. Now, a lot of what they work on does not affect you. It's pure science. Fire in zero-G, for instance. This stuff would not be funded by commercial science, and much of it is too expensive for non-profit research institutions.
But this pure science-- it spins off in ways you couldn't imagine ahead of time. Being able to synchronize clocks around the world. Being able to buy something that weighs "1 kg" and knowing that, when you get it, it's the same "1 kg" that you meant.
The BFRL at NIST also looks at lots of practical things. Things like "How can we find people trapped in fires?" or "Can we develop a method for city planners to make smart staffing decisions for fire departments?" These practical things are often a direct consequence of pure science that was published many years before. And the scientists themselves, who work down the hall from each other, interact in many unexpected and positive ways. All of these things are of great value, but in many cases, they would not be done for lack of direct money-making potential. Government science keeps us safe, and it keeps our country competitive. It is absolutely essential.
Re:And... (Score:4, Insightful)
Politicians often say one thing to passify the masses and then do the opposite under some obscure justification.
You asked why? Power, support from those who have the power, and control. I don't think there has been a modern president who wasn't in support of more federal government control in the last 30 years.
I asked why does Obama want to quash stem cell research. "Power" is a non-answer; he has the power by having the guidelines researches have to follow, whether those guidelines exclude stem cell research or not. The question is, what does this accomplish, and why would he deliberately restrict the old lines from being used, yet deliberately allow new lines to be created?
So yeah. I completely get that politicians will say one thing and do another, thanks. Now please start making sense, and explain how this makes sense.
Re:Why does federal funding equate to research? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And... (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't confuse the use of power with getting power. Power can be obtained by the support of powerful people. Think drug lobby and a medical system that treats symptoms instead of cures.
Okay, now explain how opening up all future stem cell lines with informed consent standards that are very similar to the old ones, but excluding those old ones, helps the drug lobby. If the motivation you ascribe was true, and stem cell research was a risk to the drug lobby, then Obama would have tried to prevent all future stem cell lines, not opened the floodgates to creating new ones. The restrictions on old lines would have been something concrete, not something they can get around by calling the former donors and getting a new form signed.
I thought it was pretty obvious as I already stated it. I guess your one of the people who are still buffaloed into thinking Obama was something special. He isn't, it's the same crap, the names have changed and who is leveraging who has changed but it's all the same BS.
You babbled some nonsense about Stalin and governments seeking more power and control even though they already had this power and more. Explain how this is the same BS, just don't declare it to be the same and act like that means anything.
See, the problem is that if I completely buy into that "Obama is the same BS" (instead of my default 50%), then this still doesn't make sense and you aren't making any either. You've posited a motivation. You have not explained how these specific actions fit those ascribed motivations, and in many ways it contradicts your posited motivation.
You sound like one of those people who was so upset on Nov. 3rd 2008 that you lost your ability to distinguish.
Re:so much for getting government "out of" science (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends on the appliance; I do pay attention to the Energy star ratings and consumption figures that are on major appliances. If you're buying medicines, do you buy the ones that are tested by an independent agency that at least ought to provide a reasonable expectation of independence from manufacturers, or do you just trust that whatever Dr. Watson has bottled up for his patent medicine show is perfectly safe and does what it's marketed to do?
Article 1, Section 8, which grants congress the power to:
The authority to write laws providing for health inspections of slaughterhouses, among other things, rather obviously fall under such a power.
But, to return to something you said initially:
In what way do you not have recourse? We have elections in the US, as well as a free press. Vote for that person who will best represent you, and make use of your freedom of speech to convince others to see things your way.
Re:Silly question (Score:4, Insightful)
Justification for abortion go along these lines: people do not believe it is a human life yet, they can not afford to have the child so having abortion makes it less of a burden on the state, if you make abortions illegal, people will still get them but not in the safety of a doctor's office causing deaths and injury.
It's fine if you believe abortion is taking away a life and that it should be illegal. That is a completely rational stance and there are good options like adoption. But no one ever gets pregnant so that they can have an abortion to give stem cells. No one is arguing that we should have abortions to get stem cells. But since it is legal, why would you not utilize something that could help other people? I haven't heard even the most left pro-choice person ever give that argument as a reason to conduct abortions.