Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Stem Cell Problems Slow Research 237

Posted by michael from the unexplained-limburger-craving dept.
Jeremy Erwin writes: "George W. Bush essentially closed the door on the creation of new human embryonic stem cell lines by restricting the funding to 60 existing cell lines, most of which are covered by patents of one sort or another. But now it seems that most of these cell lines were cultured using mouse cells, possibly infecting the stem cells with murine viruses. The FDA, concerned that cross species organ transplantation may hasten the spread of such viruses, has all but banned the practice. According to this Washington Post article, this could make it difficult, if not impossible to use stem cells in human clinical trials."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Stem Cell Problems Slow Research More

Stem Cell Problems Slow Research

Comments Filter:
  • That would explain the unexpected cheese craving....
  • This is just a typical example of the government making its usual uninformed decisions. When I become president, I'm going to fire the house and the senate and make it mandatory that the re-elected officials are all geeks.


    (I'm joking of course)

    • Do you find it more objectionable when leaders make poor descisions based on personal and political agendas, or when they do so and pretend that it was a difficult descision that they carefully considered with much soul searching?


      Personally, if someone makes a bad choice, it's not really a big deal. Barring some irreversible errors, anything broke can be later fixed. Maybe not as advantagious as doing right the first time, but not an atrocity. In the later case...I'm much not quite as charitable. The person in question has a good indication of what the better course of action is, and then decides to do the opposite because it's easier, and then lie about it (badly). Obviously I'm speaking about someone specifically. But if they instead of consulting a higher power for guidance, just said, "Look these ideas, as promising as they seem, conflict with my faith in ways I find moraly objectionable. But more importantly in ways my political base will not tolerate, so we won't be funding them federally."


      Of course what would Jesus say about not lifting a finger to save a man from death, reguardless of that man's character? I would think if you're going to be prolife you would have to do it all the way. It seems dishonest to be prolife for a speck of undifferentiated cells, but not a whole person who might not be an admirable individual, but real none the less. I don't think asking people to be internally consistant is too much.


      Normally, I'd protect and horde my Karma by posting AC, but I'd like to see other peoples thoughts without having to hunt for them. :)

      • Interestingly, Pat Robertson reflected on his stance on the death penalty and came to the conclusion that being Pro-Life and also Pro-Death Penalty was logically inconsistent. I'm not sure if he eventually changed his mind, the Judeo-Christian canon also specifies "an eye for an eye"-type justice so a move to an anti-Death Penalty stance would be problematic from that aspect.

        As for what Jesus would say about saving the many by sacrificing the few, I think you can look to the parable about the flock of sheep and the lost lamb for the answer. Now to say that an embryo is equivalent to a 'lost lamb' is where the debate really lies.

        Dancin Santa

    • That's why if I were elected president I'd simply stop all federal funding of nearly every sort (especially of biotech research) and shrink the federal government to about 10% of it's current size. I'd spend the rest of my term assessing the results.

      Actually, I'm rather lazy, so I'd let a Mr. Harry Browne [harrybrowne.org] do all my work.

  • According to this Washington Post article, this could make it difficult, if not impossible to use stem cells in human clinical trials.


    In the USA, that is.

    • the US is realy ego-centric dont you think.
    • Well, er, it's Federal funding that's the issue. I suspect that if the researchers *leave* to operate outside the FDA regulations, they also likely lose Federal money, which is what this whole mess is about.
    • This is BS! Stem cells can be harvested from umbilical cords and even adult humans with out harming any living being.
      WHY THIS IS AN ISSUE #1
      The problem isn't the feasibility, but the ease of attaining stem cells. It's easier to kill a baby and get them from there.
      WHY THIS IS AN ISSUE #2
      This is classic propaganda used to slander Bush because this decision is unpopular with the loud minority. The women's rights activists think of this as a move to make abortion illegal and are trying to paint Bush as someone who opposes what is good for us all, when his decision doesn't hinder progress, but makes us seek avenues that do not tread under any sense of moral responsibility to the sanctity of human life. So anyone who is 'liberal' and most walk to democrat line (partisan) will oppose what Bush's decision based not on science, but politics. Most of your news agencies and scientific community lean toward the liberal side of politics, etc. so you will see this in the news as if Bush single handedly crushed all hope of doing research when it is simply not true.

  • WRONG. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Picass0 ( 147474 )
    You can create new stem call lines, they just don't qualify for federal funds. They need to be privately financed by the biotech sector.
    • You can create new stem call lines, they just don't qualify for federal funds. They need to be privately financed by the biotech sector.

      How long do you think it will take before that happens? Most likely within our lifetimes, I'd figure. Then that corporation would have a nice little monopoly on the stem cell lines, since they could most likely be protected as property of some fashion or another (patent or intellectual or other nonsense). Thank you Mr. Bush for quietly looking out for the coporate interest again.

      Wonder if Mr. Gates has thought of using some of his money that way? Can you imagine MS StemCell XP? *huge shudder*
      • Well it says that part of the problem now is that some are under patents.

        Even if they allowed for more they would end up being patented as well. The difference is now they have to pay all of the money to get those patents instead of using some of ours.
      • Then that corporation would have a nice little monopoly on the stem cell lines, since they could most likely be protected as property of some fashion or another (patent or intellectual or other nonsense). Thank you Mr. Bush for quietly looking out for the coporate interest again.

        Since they will probably get the patents using our money anyway, I am happy Mr. Bush forced these large corporations to spend their own money to get the patents. I am glad he is looking out for the little guy.
    • Does this situation apply only to undifferentiated cells from fetal tissue or are other less controversial sources elegible for funding? Some Canadian researchers have managed to extract undifferentiated cells from the skin of living adult humans. It contains all of the same features found in fetal stem cells and can potentially be grown into nerve cells. Research continues to see if the skin-based nerve cells can carry signals the way fetal-stem-derived nerve cells do.

      I would think that the USA would be pretty quick to fund research using the Canadian skin cells since it would help get fetal cells out of the limelight.

      See the CBC story [cbc.ca].

  • The point (or so the politic-speak goes) was not to bring stem cell research to full fruition. The point was to determine whether or not stem cells will be able to do the fantastic things that scientists think they might be able to do.

    They just pushed off the impending philisophical debate, basically.

  • Not quite... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by pjl5602 ( 150416 )
    George W. Bush essentially closed the door on the creation of new human embryonic stem cell lines by restricting the funding to 60 existing cell lines, most of which are covered by patents of one sort or another.


    Uh, that's only if they use federal funds.&nbsp If they don't use federal funds there are NO restrictions.


    Nice F.U.D.

    • Uh, that's only if they use federal funds. If they don't use federal funds there are NO restrictions.

      No, they still can't clone (but, since cloning isn't really producing geneticly identical clones, it's not really worth it)
      Also, any new stem cell line will be patented and owned by the corporation, so you have to pay outrageous amounts of money to a corporation for the use of those lines.

      Especially now, with the current lines validity in question, the Bush policy will drive stem-cell research, and the future of medice into the hands of biotech giants and away from the hands of the scientists, people and policy makers. Of course, it is questionable whether biotech giants will invest money into something if they don't get the government to pay for it, but given the possibilities of making shitloads of money, they probably will.
      • "the hands of the scientists"

        These biotech gians DO employ scientists, often the best in their field.
      • No, they still can't clone (but, since cloning isn't really producing geneticly identical clones, it's not really worth it)


        Besides the fact that it's off-topic, if it's not worth it, why even bother bringing it up?


        the Bush policy will drive stem-cell research, and the future of medice into the hands of biotech giants


        I don't follow you totally on this one.&nbsp How much federal money were we really talking about here?&nbsp More than $300,000,000?&nbsp Spread across how many institutions (including biotech giants that are already flush with cash)?&nbsp Anyhow, my point is that the money can easily come from other sources than the feds.&nbsp The folks wanting the feds to pony up the cash are making a mountain out of a mole hill IMO since when you get right down to it, it's not that much money (yeah, it'd be a lot to you and me, but it's nothing compared to the budget of most any large research University.)&nbsp I have any hang ups with the research happening.&nbsp I'm just sick of everybody looking to D.C. for a handout and then bitching when they don't get one because it helps to push their fucked-up political agenda.

    • I would also like to toss in my 2 cents. You are absolutely correct. The door is essentially closed for federal funding only. That does not mean that this research will not go on privately. Who ever sent that story in was hoping to spread FUD. With all the moral/ethical implications of this whole issue I am very happy that my tax dollars will not be going toward this research.

      For those who disagree with me, why don't you put your $$ where your mouth is and fund private organizations that are looking to research this? Or you could just whine about it and drag this out into a big huge argument, oh wait that's already happened. Well, you get the picture.
  • That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever seen our government do. How the hell can you patent something that's ALIVE! I can just see myself getting a letter from XYZ Big F***ing biotech firm stating that during my last physical they found that cells in my body violated several of their "key patents" and I have to report for immediate removal. But if I was born befor the patent was issued, wouldn't that be Prior Art??
  • It's important to note that Bush's administrative authority here only covers the applications of federal money in research. His decision will hurt research by many scientists, but doesn't prohibit anyone in the private sector from doing what they want with stem cells. That would require bills to be passed by the Congress.

    Bush's move (provided that it lasts) will impede the growth of knowledge and lead to even more privatization and patenting of important fundamental research. It's fairly certain that big medicine will continue to develop new lines of cells, as the payoffs for genetic technologies may be tremendous.
  • I'm upset that we can't destroy embryos but at least abortion is still legal.
  • ... that by the time stem cell products are ready for human clinical trials, Duh-bya will be out of office, and we'll have someone in office who can make decisions based on rational thought, not on what a bunch of religious fanatics tell him in between his golf game and his afternoon nap.

    And to all the right-wingers who will no doubt jump on this post saying "The Democrats aren't any better George W. Bush made a carefully thought-out decision blah blah blah," I say: BULLSHIT. Your anointed princeling has made an off-the-cuff decision that will condemn millions of people suffering from terrible diseases to an early and unpleasant death.
  • If you want to start planting stem cells into live people, you're going to get a patent on the process that helps you fight the disease. Once you are at that stage in the process, you should be privately funded.

    Federal research dollars are supposed to go to basic science. This "compromise" allows the scientists to do ALL the basic research that they want on the tax payer's nickel.

    If they want to start destroying embryos and doing human clinical testing, well, let the private sector pick up the tab.

    There is no reason that these researchers are entitled to tax payer dollars.
    • Sure, and it's a far better use of the "taxpayer's nickle" to pay me SSDI (for secondary progressive multiple sclerosis) for the rest of my life, currently at some $14k a year (plus inflation), plus pay my medical costs (except prescriptions), and subsidise my housing cost, rather than waste the money financing something that stands a chance in Hades of allowing me to return to work as a Software Engineer. Riiiight.

      It's this extreme short-sightedness, combined with the RRR's holier-than-thou stance, that has effectively shut the door on a cure for millions of people. Thanks, Shrub Junior. I really needed this.
  • Let me start off by saying that I firmly believe in the existence of God.

    It's also my belief that God purposely created man as scientifically-minded, inquisitive creatures. In order for us to carry out His work on Earth, scientific innovation must not be suppressed.

    George Bush, in an effert to do what he believed was moral, in fact suppressed innovation. Stem Cell research has fantastic potential to improve quality of life for generations to come

    .

    To not allow scientific research and discovery, rather than being the "morally correct" choice, is the exact opposite. To not use our God-given gifts of intelligence and curiosity when they could be used to help humans, is truly the morally incorrect choice.

  • ... that thinks Bush is just a puppet for the (christian) religous zelots in power? Does he even understand what 'seperation of church and state' means? He's pushing the stem cell scientists to pack up and move to another country that isn't lead by a complete idiot.

    -IO
    www.damnit.org [damnit.org]

    • OR (Score:1)

      by Tensor ( 102132 )
      Or seek private funding within the US to continue their work...

    • "Does he even understand what 'seperation of church and state' means? "

      What this has to do with the topic at hand ?
      I know people who are anything but religious zelots and are still against this research.
      • Well, what are the philosophical underpinnings of this policy? What would have to be true in order for this to be considered a rational decision?
        • "What would have to be true in order for this to be considered a rational decision?"

          Only as viewed by you.
          Unless you are never mistaken and your predictions always turn out to be on the money, you are just another guy with just another point of view.
          Remember, this is not a scientific question but a moral one. We know that this sort of research can be very useful; we just don't know how far we can go playing with this stuff before we end up venturing into Mengele territory.
          • "Remember, this is not a scientific question but a moral one."


            And, this is precisely my point. This decision is based upon a Christian morality. I am not a Christian, and I do not want my behavior, or the bahavior of my society, to be governed by a Christian morality. The constitution of the United States guarantees separation of church and state. This means that the government may not resort to religion as a basis for public policy. This decision clearly violates the principle of separation of church and state.


            we just don't know how far we can go playing with this stuff before we end up venturing into Mengele territory.


            Tissue engineering, the major application of stem cell research, has nothing in common with eugenics. This kind of rhetoric simply clouds the issue. W, and his far right constituency, object to this research because they believe that a divine being objects to it.
            • "This decision clearly violates the principle of separation of church and state. "

              Well, you do live in predominantly Christian society and therefore you will be subjected to their version of morality.
              There is no escape from it because US is what it is because of its Christian heritage.
              If you do object to this decision because it is not in line with your social or religious beliefs then so what?
              If we were to account for every possible set of social values we would end up with no laws whatsoever because I am sure there would be people offended by the notion that murder is something that people should not do.
              There is no such thing like "universal morality" and therefore you will be subjected to some version of it.

              • Well, you do live in predominantly Christian society and therefore you will be subjected to their version of morality.


                I live in a society whose predominant morality is spelled out in the constitution. You may recall that the first settlers of this land came here to escape state religion as did my ancestors, and very possibly yours. Separation of church and state is the original principle of our nation.


                If, say, fifty years from now, a majority of Americans have converted to, say, scientology, would you rather enjoy protections from the influence of their morality or would you prefer to be subject to it? Separation of church and state guarantees that no religion, not even that of the majority, will be imposed upon our society.


                Sound principles are worth defending even when their defense is a cause of inconvenience. Unless you know that your particular morality will remain popular indefinitely, better to preserve the principle of church and state now in case you may have need of it later.

                • "You may recall that the first settlers of this land came here to escape state "

                  Yes, they did but they and their ancestors never hesitated to include references to God in the very constitution you are referring to.
                  Show me a single sentence where it says in constitution that elected officials cannot be influenced by their beliefs.
                  This thing has been taken to extreme in the last 20 years to the point where anything even remotely related to religion is being prohibited by our government.
                  It is basically opposite of "endorsement of religion" - both of which are prohibited by our constitution.
                  • The constitution makes reference to a god; however, it deliberately makes no refernce to any specific religion. Different religions dictate different moral codes. Even within a particular religion, these codes change over time (e.g., American Christians only began their opposition to abortion in the the 1820s). Our constitution is very carefully designed to allow people who disagree about such things (like you and me) to coexist peacefully without one group dominating another. Also, note that the primary authors of the constitution were Deists.


                    I respect your right to practice your religion (or lack thereof) as you see fit, and our constitution requires that you respect mine. In no case should the laws of this country be derived from any religion. This is what the constitution requires.


                    Some 72 percent of America's top scientists are atheists and a further 20 percent are agnostics (Larson 1998). In the general population of scientists, around 60 percent don't believe in a god. You may not recognize how, well, painful it is for us to witness the increasing intrusion of religion into public policy. We are at least as gravely concerned about these issues as you are. And, if this trend continues, as much as we love our country, not a few of us may decide to leave (Europe has no christian right to speak of, for example). I hope that this prospect, however remote, worries you and yours as much as it worries me and mine.

                    • I am not practicing Christian but I do recognize value of organized religion ( as a glue for a society.)
                      As much as you would like you cannot operate in a moral vacuum, especially when being paid by our tax money.

                      "In no case should the laws of this country be derived from any religion. "

                      But they have to be derived from something and if majority of citizens opt for values based on their religious beliefs there is NOTHING wrong with that. They can do it because it is their country.
                      The bottom line: nobody is asking you to stop doing what you are doing but to simply to consider the fact that if you are being founded by citizens of this country and consequently you have to adhere to rules set by them.
                    • . . . I do recognize value of organized religion ( as a glue for a society.)

                      Historically, religion has been a source of division within our society. It is only by setting aside our religious differences that we have held together. America is a great power because, by and large, we have embraced the rational, scientific view of the universe (and because of our geographic isolation from potential adversaries, our abunance of domestic natural resources, and other purely external factors).


                      But they have to be derived from something and if majority of citizens opt for values based on their religious beliefs there is NOTHING wrong with that. They can do it because it is their country.
                      The bottom line: nobody is asking you to stop doing what you are doing but to simply to consider the fact that if you are being founded by citizens of this country and consequently you have to adhere to rules set by them.
                      You may not realize that two thirds of Americans support federal funding of stem cell research (AP story [nandotimes.com]). So, this is not a case in which the American people have reached a moral concensus, and their representatives are merely implementing a policy based on that concensus. This is a case of a religious minority inflicting its moral code on the majority.
                    • Show me one example of society that benefited from lack of religion.

                      Pre-Taliban Afghanistan (at least if you were a woman). The Roman Empire. For all practical purposes, contemporary Europe and Japan. Most Arab nations, insofar as they were far more secular 50 to 100 years ago than they are today. Iran.

                    • Roman Empire: popular religious manias culminating in establishment of Christianity as the state religion coincided with the degeneration of the Empire. At its height, it was an effectively secular state.

                      How much does it take to "pass judgement?" Considering that a history full of religion gives us virtually no where with as much peace as Europe and Japan have enjoyed in the past 50 years - in fact, I'm hard-pressed to recall the last 50-year stretch of peace anywhere - I have to ask just what you need to pass judgement?

                      Afghanistan during the socialist and Russian eras was pretty secular. Not ideal, mind you, but better than what they have now - which was what we were asked for. Only a Western-armed theocracy ended it.

                      I turn the challenge around, in fact: cite me a civilization whose essential secularness created a worse society than their religious epochs did.

                    • Most Japanese only nominal "practice" the religion to which they belong, like Europeans. Shinto is animist. Buddhism is, in fact, essentially atheistic. Or rather, it holds the question of the existence or non-existence of God as irrelevant. (From the Sutras, it is defined as "a question which does not tend towards edification.") But modern-day Japanese are not devout by any means.

                      If by religion you mean following any ethos at all, then the USSR was "religious" by that standard.

                    • Ask any of the women in the refugee camps in Pakistan if they feel that way. The Russian-backed government provided services, educated both women and men. Have you read how the entire internet is now banned in Afghanistan, except for one small room in the government building? Do you remember something about the destruction of Buddhist statues? Do you know that the suicide rate of Afghani women is the highest in the world?

                      Do you really believe that the Russian-backed government was worse than this?

                    • I am not talking about the post-invasion Afghanistan. You are talking about the war crimes that the Soviet army committed I am talking about the PDPA government that the Soviets backed before the invasion. They waged a campaign against illiteracy, started a debt forgiveness program, improved the health and lot of women in Afghanistan, etc. Of course, they were doomed - and the Soviet invasion was brutal. But the Taliban are far worse for the majority of Afghani people than the PDPA were.
                    • Yes. Because the current system is also tyrannical, and is based on a religious ideology that has created the most oppressive system for women imaginable. Since women are 50% of the afghani population, I'd say that adds up to "worse." The previous government lacked popular support, but - like North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba - it's not as if those regimes appeared in the context of preexisting healthy democracies (note that with a few exceptions in Eastern Europe no hardline Communist regime has existed in the context of a country with a democratic tradition - the undemocratic aspects of Communism are to a great extent part of the historical cultures of those countries, and Communism can even be seen as simply another trapping for a sector of the elite) but it authentically worked for the well-being of its people, unlike the current regime whose primary motivation is ideological purity.
                    • Essentially, my point is that the cover-ideology of that regime at least made life better for women and non-Muslims than the religious ideology (which isn't a cover - and that fact may make it more destructive, since a fanatic is usually more brutal than a cynic) of the current one.

                  • Yes, they did but they and their ancestors never hesitated to include references to God in the very constitution you are referring to.
                    There are no references to God in the US constitution. I just read it and all 27 amendments. Maybe you can point out which part of the US constitution references God.
  • According to this AP story [nytimes.com] (free registration at NY Times required), that's not really an issue:
    The fact that colonies of human embryonic stem cells are grown with the help of mouse cells won't block their eventual use in people as long as scientists meet well-known federal safety rules, regulators said Friday.


    Indeed, the Food and Drug Administration has allowed cells from pig fetuses to be implanted experimentally into the brains of Parkinson's disease patients. A Massachusetts company for 10 years has grown burn victims skin grafts using mouse ``feeder'' cells like those at issue with stem cell research.

    Tim
    • im karma whoring but heres a link that does not require registration [nytimes.com]

      http://archives.nytimes.com/aponline/health/AP-S te m-Cells-Mice.html
    • "According to this AP story [nytimes.com] (free registration at NY Times required), that's not really an issue"

      So far as I know, the move was only allowed after an exhaustive search of the porcine cell line for any traces of infectious viruses.

      After eliminating all possibilities for infectious viruses, then you have to consider endogenous retroviruses. These are portions of retroviral code that have inserted themselves into the host genome, and are passed down from generation to generation. Most species, including humans, have them. To be able to use an animal cell line in humans, you'd also have to prove that these pieces of retroviral code either are incapable of spontaneously re-activating, or that the re-activated virus cannot infect human cells (With the additional problem that transplant patients will be on immunosupprescent drugs).

      I don't know if this is the issue with the murine feeder cell line, though.
  • Bush made his decision about the funding for stem cell research several weeks ago. After his decision, no one went to check out the status of those stem cell lines? Did Bush even look at any info on these 60 stem cell lines, or did he just happen to pick that option out of the hat of options he was considering? My tax dollars at work eh?

    • Consider reading the article next time -- it states that the administration was aware, and did not consider this a problem, believing that since experimental implantation in humans isn't going to happen anytime soon (Federal funding or no), they'll have time to find ways to work within FDA guidelines.

  • W's morally inconsistent position (Score:5, Funny)

    by renard ( 94190 ) on Friday August 24, 2001 @05:46PM (#2215590)
    I defy anyone to explain to me how (as W would have it) it can be okay to finance research on human stem cell lines that were created before a certain date (date of W's speech?), and verboten to finance research on stem cells created after that date.

    What is the moral value of a date? Either it is okay to create stem cell lines (all right, all right, "destroy embryos") or it is not. The fact that the cell lines were created (embryos destroyed) before W started paying attention to the subject has no relevance. And if it is not okay to create stem cell lines, then it cannot be okay to use them for research purposes.

    And please don't tell me about how the net result will be fewer of these embryos destroyed. Frozen embryos are destroyed at fertility clinics every day, en masse, and W has not lifted even his pinky finger to stop that. Far more useful, in my opinion, is the approach now being taken by Harvard and Boston IVF [yahoo.com], to use these embryos for research rather than simply dump them in the garbage.

    -Renard


    • I defy anyone to explain to me how (as W would have it) it can be okay to finance research on human stem cell
      lines that were created before a certain date (date of W's speech?), and verboten to finance research on stem cells
      created after that date.


      Maybe he's a pragmatist. He couldn't bring back the dead embryo's, so might as well use them, even though he is opposed to embryo harvesting.

      Principles are a good thing if you're never wrong, I unfortunately cannot afford the luxury of principles . . . I'm wrong too often.
      • I doubt W would accept your characterization of his position (W: He may be inconsistent, but at least he's pragmatic!). But okay, I'll bite.

        What is it about the already-dead embryos that were responsible for the (nominal) 60 preexisting stem cell lines of W's speech that distinguishes them from the already-dead embryos that are responsible for any additional stem cell lines that exist today? Or that will exist in one year?

        Dead is dead - use the cell lines for research. You can't get more pragmatic than that.

        -Renard

        • Actually they weren't dead, they just just scheduled to be disposed of. I really don't see what the problem with using them is.

          It really is similar to doing medical tests on cadavers. The person is dead whether you do the tests or not. And these embryos would be too. The only difference is whether you want them dead in a garbage can, or dead in a garbage can minus a few stem cells.
    • I defy anyone to explain to me how (as W would have it) it can be okay to finance research on human stem cell lines that were created before a certain date (date of W's speech?), and verboten to finance research on stem cells created after that date.

      The point is not some arbitrary date. The point is the idea that "What's done is done, but don't do it again."

      Here's a very close analogy: It's OK for medical students to work on cadavers for educational purposes. It is not OK to go out and kill people to ensure an adequate supply of cadavers.

    • I rather enjoyed W's speech on this matter, where he weighed the value of the potential benefits of stem-cell research against the "moral hazards" presented by their use. The President, however, neglected to mention a third consideration - one I think was the tie-breaker, and one that might go some way to explaining the inconsistency in his moral position - money.

      The U.S. has already fallen some years behind Europe, and particularly the U.K., in a number of biotechnology avenues. This isn't because of some technical deficiency, but because of the U.S. government's extreme sluggishness in coming to concrete policy decisions on these matters. In contrast, many other countries (the U.K. in particular) took a very proactive stance, and had decided what was and what wasn't permissable in advance of the technical wherewithall becoming available.

      President Bush received an enormous amount of lobbying from biotech concerns in the runup to his making this decision, who felt that Europe's biotech lead would only increase if federal funding for stem-cell research wasn't forthcoming.

      Thus this decision makes perfect sense - his primary motivation (as in so many of this other decisions) is the financial interests of the business concerns with which the President is so closely allied.

    • This is not flamebait. I'm using the word "left-wing" as shorthand for the position that "abortion is ok because a fetus is not a human, and therefore fetal tissue is ok to experiment with". This viewpoint is more prevalent among liberals than conservatives in my experience, and among scientists. But if you disagree, you'll understand what I'm saying just the same now that I've explained it, and you won't need to object on those grounds: my left equals liberal (in the American sense), and I think this is a liberal position.

      One common argument in favor of a zygote's not being a life is the argument that it is just a ball of cells. This same argument is carried further to early stage fetuses before the nervous system is developed to the extent of anything resembling consciousness. [some take it even further. I am trying to summarize a variety of arguments quickly here and have probably not captured every nuance. Please do not quibble unless you think there is some way of phrasing it that is especially useful]

      Recently, findings were published [canoe.ca] from a study which entailed injecting live human fetal cells into a developing monkey fetus brain. The experiment was a success in that the human cells developed fully and were incorporated into the monkey brain... huh? When the researchers were killing these monkeys, did they give any thought to the notion that they were killing a being with partial but fully developed human nervous system?

      Am I taking sides in this issue? Well, you decide after I tell you where in the middle I stand. Between what isn't a human life and what is a human life there is a vast grey area. Clearly we need to draw a line somewhere, but wherever we draw a line we are going to be able to find seeming "inconsistencies". But draw a line we must. I am in favor of drawing a more conservative line that errs on the side of preserving more of what "might be" humans, because I think devaluing humanity is a slippery slope. Is this an inconsisten position? Not more than any other. But is it a "costly" position in terms of "humanity"?

      We know that there are plenty of scientists among us who would be perfectly willing to experiment on human adults or children in the name of science. Certainly we'd get the best results that way, and the cost of a small number of botched experiments would be more than made up for by the millions of lives improved and saved with our new knowledge. If we experimented on volunteers, what's the diff? Most/many scientists give at least lip service to the supposed ethical problem they see with experimenting on actual human subjects. Well, limits on fetal research or stem cell research are simply a small extension to the "keep off the grass" area. The cost is less knowledge about human biology, only more slowly developing cures to defects and frailties. But defects and frailties are part of what makes us human. What we have in common with our ancestors is that we are mortal. We live, we love, we die. (interesting: I'm applying the leftwing/romanticized/artsy view of humanity, liberal arts if you will, as opposed to the cold calculations of cost-benefit... now who is the hypocrite?) What if we could eradicate death... should we? Really?

      What I find disturbing is the insanely egotistical drive for prolonging the lives of those close to us that this medical research represents. If prolonging and improving human life is your goal, well dig deep and save the children of Africa. If prolonging and improving your life is the goal, I have trouble joining in. Or maybe it's the "Nazi-scientist's" pursuit of knowledge for its own sake without regard to the humanity of the subjects that disturbs me. Or maybe these scientists are just buried in their research and don't even want to think about the issues, and it bothers me that they draw a conclusion without much thinking? Or maybe there is some merit to my suspicion that politics plays a role and if it's "conservative" they hate it and if it's "liberal" they like it, for what else could explain the way the two sides seem to line up?

      I don't expect you to instantly come around to my postions here, but I hope you walk away realizing that there is more to think about here than "oh, the other side just doesn't get it". I, for one, think I've shown that I get a lot more of it than you do.

      I defy anyone to explain to me how (as W would have it) it can be okay to finance research on human stem cell lines that were created before a certain date (date of W's speech?), and verboten to finance research on stem cells created after that date.

      If scientists can live with a ban on experimenting on humans, they ought to be able to live with an only slightly more liberal definition of what is a human. Different people have different opinions and we reach middle ground in the political arena. I'd guess that Bush doesn't think he knows all the answers either, but realizes there are solid pros and cons and powerful political forces on both sides, and his decision was a compromise--generally, the ability to compromise is extolled as a virtue, you will recall.

      • I believe the reason for the contrast is that there is a fundamental difference in the "reason for living" outlook in the left vs. the right.

        To those on the left, the only reason for living is to enjoy living in the now. That means, basically, take no thought for the generations to come, whether they'll have as much freedom, opportunity, safety, health, etc. as those living now do, or, at least, subordinate those concerns to the primacy of those already living.

        Hence, abortion on demand, by the millions in the USA, one of the richest and most secure nations in the history of the planet for women, who nevertheless choose to abort purely for their own convenience. (I'm not talking about abortions that are medically necessary here.)

        The right generally dismisses the bright, shiny object known as "instant gratification" in favor of instilling beliefs, systems, etc. that it believes most effectively transmits civilization and culture to subsequent generations.

        To those on the right, abortion and, by extracting stem cells, destroying (even frozen) embryos that might be saved before being otherwise destroyed (and, yes, saving such embryos does happen, there are people alive today who once were frozen embryos slated for destruction), contributes to a reduced regard for life in civilization.

        Clearly those whose right to life are being advocated in favor of, by the right, and yet will die due to being aborted or destroyed, will never vote Republican, will never be taxed to fund a missile-defense system, will never contribute to their local Baptist church, will never buy loads of Proctor & Gamble products (to pick four stereotypical examples of why right-wingers supposedly advocate various positions). Yet the right expends vastly more energy and takes much bigger risks trying, mostly in vain, to save these voiceless, often faceless, human beings than does the left in saving animals, trees, the environment, and so on, even though all the right asks for is laws restricting individual choice in abortion on demand and such, while those on the left insist that every one of us change our way of life vastly (stop emitting greenhouse gases, which means "stop breathing", by the way; stop generating trash; stop doing business; etc.).

        Those on the right believe that fundamental human values are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the ownership of property, and that only civilization, including the presence of some sort of military to defend those rights, is sufficient to ensure that future generations will get to enjoy them as we do.

        Those on the left act, generally, out of the assumption that, either those rights just naturally sprang forth from the ground (hence their general disregard for those who fought and died to carve them out, e.g. the USA's Founding Fathers) or that they're unimportant in the first place ("but those embryos are just clumps of cells" -- a statement that is 100% true of each one of us, as the scientists of Nazi Germany would explain if they were still around, given that there's no clear, scientific point at which we become more than a clump, other than conception).

        Instead, the fundamental values on the left do not have to do so much with life and liberty as with the "right" to enjoy the fruits of another man's labor, the "right" to take the life of an innocent who cannot speak for himself if it serves some short-term convenience, and so on. Left-wing propaganda therefore tends to portray what scientists call "life" as merely a happy accident, something to which no being has any real right, unless, let's say, that being happens to be on death row in a state whose governor is the Republican candidate for President. (This also explains why those in the right can seem insanely opposed to scientific pursuits such as SETI or teaching evolution -- even when those opposing these things are scientists! It's not so much the teaching of theories that's really bugging them, it's the indoctrination of children into the notion that life isn't a fundamental right given to us by God, a view the right believes is, itself, regardless of whether God actually exists, necessary to the preservation of a free society over many generations.)

        So, to the left, it just doesn't matter one whit that embryos, fetuses, or perhaps even terminally ill children, elderly, and, someday of course (if we do go down the left's road), adults might be sacrificed to the gods of medical necessity, if not medical convenience. As long as the valuable research springs forth, one would think, the destruction is worthwhile, but even results aren't necessary -- the left claims 100% success is required only for things like missile defense, never for things like abortion on demand (wasn't that supposed to reduce unplanned pregnancies over time?) or welfare (aka the "war on poverty", which did for poverty what the "war on drugs" did for drug use in the USA).

        That is, in 50 years, if there are no substantial benefits arising out of research on embryonic stem cells, despite President Clinton (#44, aka Hillary) reversing Bush and forcing American taxpayers to fund the creation and destruction of millions of embryos to a) create vast quantities of stem cells for "research" and b) further inoculate the American public against the notion that conception might signal the beginning of life, I can assure you there will be no apology from those on the left for the millions of lives sacrificed for no real good. (But remember, boys and girls, we can't go building a missile-defense shield to prevent real enemies from even bothering to build vast numbers of real nukes, unless we can prove, before even conducting research and testing, that such a shield would, when attacked simultaneously by every nation on earth plus UN, NATO, and Greenpeace, exhibit a 100% success rate! Never mind that we aren't killing human beings to research such a shield. In fact, I wonder if we could convince the left to build the shield if we could find a way to use aborted fetuses as crucial components in the research? JUST KIDDING -- the Right would never tolerate such a thing anyway.)

        After all, the ideology of the left is much closer to that of those who have murdered tens of millions of innocents adults, children, and fetuses in the 20th century alone -- a feat that so-called "religious persecution" did not come anywhere near to matching in all the 20 centuries that preceded it. (Of course, most successful religious persecution is actually carried out as government-sponsored persecution shrouded in the garb of religion, just as this century's massacres have been carried out by governments claiming they're communist, socialist, whatever. There is, however, a much greater distance between murder and Christ than between murder and Marx, which may explain why followers of the former run out of steam following a murderous tyrant more quickly than followers of the latter. In the extreme cases, the idea that killing everyone lets God sort them out is dangerous, but is not nearly so, due to its more-obvious illogic, than the left's version, namely, kill everyone who doesn't agree everyone should be made equally poor.)

        The tyrannical mind-set of the left is so pervasive in this world that even those on the right accept it, in at least limited form, in their own thinking. That's why even prominent "conservative" news organizations, like Fox News, don't have frequent interviews with survivors of abortion attempts, people who've used firearms (even just "cocking", if that's the right word, a shotgun) to defend their life, loved ones, and/or property, and so on. That's why Bill O'Reilly says things like "Republicans don't want lower-mileage cars" instead of something vastly closer to the truth, namely, "Republicans don't want to cram artificially low-mileage cars down the throats of the car-buying American public".

        In that context, and given the fact that the politically active tyrants tend to care less about ideology than about control of power and money (which explains why abortion advocates and advocates of embryonic stem-cell research go hysterical -- witness the vicious treatment of Presidents who cross them here -- over mere withdrawal of federal funds for their "pet projects", despite the fact that vast amounts of private funds are at hand to fund such activities -- because they can't control the populace as effectively when funded by charity, however substantial it might be, compared to when they're funded by force, i.e. tax dollars), it's not surprising that this debate has been largely framed as "George Bush decides the fate of stem-cell research", often leaving out key words such as "federally-funded" and "embryonic".

        Nor is it surprising that, even in a story that clearly includes the pertinent information, many here (highly-modded-up, I'll point out) scream as if Bush is the stupidest President in history simply because he refuses to use force, i.e. the same "men with guns" that "liberated" Elian so he could return to being the property of the State of Cuba, to force every American taxpayer to fund a form of research many of them would, if they knew the facts rather than just the left-wing-media hype, find repugnant.

        So, yes, this is a religious issue. The left is upset because their religion requires them to make sacrifices to their gods by forcing fellow citizens to part with their hard-earned property and money so as to fund whatever those gods claim is most important Right Now.

        Meanwhile, the right is still upset because our society still celebrates abortion on demand as if it's the only means by which women can celebrate being "equal", having "choice", etc. So much for the use of the word "choice", when most who favor it in the context of abortion oppose it in the context of the ordinary citizen deciding whether to fund embryonic stem-cell research.

        In the end, given the fact that even prominent "pro-life" Republicans have trouble opposing the continued use of stem cells newly extracted by destroying viable embryos, it's unlikely Bush's decision will long stand, and impossible that it'll shut down research on embryonic stem cells, any more than the US prohibition on slavery will keep that activity shut down worldwide.

        Ultimately, in another 100 years or so, anyone with diseases such as Parkinson's, taking medication to alleviate or eliminate their suffering, will have to live with the fact that their added comfort and longer lives resulted from the unwilling sacrifices of many who never got a chance to voice their opinions on these issues, never got to vote, and never got to research harmless and moral ways to achieve the same results, perhaps even faster. Just as we Americans (especially those who are white) are constantly told that their country was "built on the backs of slaves", there'll be a guilt factor. (Of course, among several big differences are that at least the slaves had a shot at escaping, and, in the meantime, they got to live. I wonder: why wasn't it okay to enslave people, given that they were all going to die anyway, just like most frozen embryos? Hmmm....)

  • hmm (Score:1)

    by rash ( 83406 )
    Why does it sounds like the USA
    is the start and end to this sort
    of research?

    USA != The World

    Please mention what country you
    are talking about and dont make
    me havto asume USA to be default
    for eveything.
    • "Why does it sounds like the USA
      is the start and end to this sort
      of research?"

      Well, it is true. Not always but often enough to warrant generalization like that.
  • Are embryonic stem cells the only feasible method of curing what ails us? How does that jive with this research [time.com]? Are there other non-embryo based stem cells that can be used?

    It would seem that the fervor over this debate would die if there was some way to avoid using embryos altogether. Is it simply impossible to do this without them?

    Dancin Santa

  • Adult stem cells (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ZaMoose ( 24734 ) on Friday August 24, 2001 @05:49PM (#2215611)
    ...have shown far more promise in terms of research. The fetal cells tend to be so maleable and flexible that they can grow wildly out of control with devstating consequences to the transplantee.

    Adult stem cells aren't as maleable, but they ARE more stable and better able to target specific ailments. Also, there's only a miniscule chance of a human rejecting its own cells.

    Besides, from all of the research I've seen, the stem cells contained in the umbilical cord of babies carried to-term are just as viable as those extracted from aborted ones. Why not concentrate your efforts on those, instead of making a reproductive issue out of the whole thing?
  • The FDA's reservations with regard to Xenotransplantation (that is, the transplantation into humans of tissue or organs from other species) are, I think, very prudent.

    The great majority of diseases that presently afflict human populations were (or, in many cases, continue to be) transmitted from both domestic and wild animals (nasties like influenza, HIV, ebola, and CJD included).

    By their very nature, animals suitable for xenotransplantation are sufficiently close to humans for this transmission to be a very real risk, and direct transplantation afforts a hugely lower barrier to transmission than do the current (already viable) means (ingestion, animal bites, intermediate vectors, inhalation of aerosolized organisms, etc.)

    This isn't to say that xenotransplantation shouldn't be done, only that great study and care is necessary for it to be performed safely.

    Not every caution or limitation on the progress of science arises from reactionary luddism or religious zeal.

    • Oh, I agree. Xenotransplantation is risky-- and even though waivers may be obtainable from the FDA, transplants may cause serious epidemiological problems. The solution may lie in creating new "mouse-free" lines, but because federal funds will not be made available to support the creation of such lines, private enterprise will have to step in...

      But private, commercial research poses its own set of problems. Firstly, it's much more difficult to regulate. Secondly, it is almost ceratin that these discoveries will be patented to the nth degree, making it much more difficult for academic investigators to conduct research without signing non-disclosure agreements. etc.

      (Corporate sponsored research often includes a clause about not publishing negative results, and other perversions of traditional academic freedom.)

  • Poor Bush... he's hates his own kind I believe. Saying "stop" to all fellow embryos.

  • Misconceptions (Score:3, Insightful)

    by raaum ( 152451 ) on Friday August 24, 2001 @05:56PM (#2215651) Homepage

    1. Bush's policy applies only to federal funding (NIH - National Institutes of Health funding basically). It has no impact on private funding. Private biomediacal research is huge is the US.



    2. Stem cell lines are innovative not because they are cell lines, but because they are embryonic stem cell lines. Cell lines are central in medical research. No drug or therapy can progress to human trials until its effects in vitro (that is, on cells in a dish) have been assessed. There are hundreds of established, standard cell lines that are used for this purpose.



    3. It is totally beyond my comprehension how this debate has come to focus on the destruction of embryos. Embryos are destroyed by the hundreds daily. Many fertility clinics require clients to agree to terms that amount to: 'We will create embryos, implant them within you, and any spares will be destroyed in five years if you don't come back asking for them'. Whether or not federal funds can be used for stem cell research, multitudes of embryos are being destroyed daily. This decision has no impact whatsoever upon that fact. The number of embryos 'destroyed' as a consequence of embryonic stem cell research will never be more than a miniscule proportion of the total number of stem cells destroyed.

  • ... that people wishing to perform research on stem cell lines are leaving the United States to go to Great Britain - basically to avoid the influence of religious based persecution ??

    • "of religious based persecution ?? "

      WTF are you talking about ?
      His position on that issue was known for a long time.
      He got elected running with these sort of views so he has mandate to do what he did.

      • religious based persecution

        He got elected running with these sort of views so he has mandate to do what he did.

        There is no question (in my mind, at least) that W ran with a campaign strongly influenced by his beliefs, themselves indicitave of a religious nature. I find the original poster entirely within his (logical) rights to point it out, and personally, I find the irony hilarious. Hopefully, enough people will notice, and mod it up, as I think this is a vital piece in understanding the current political climate.

      • WTF are you talking about ?

        I am talking about a position pushed strongly by the religious right, which consists of the strongest supporters of W. I work at UCSF, and have friends who are packing their bags and moving to Cambridge England to be able to continue their research.

        Religion has a long history of stepping in the face of science with supposedly noble intentions. Galileo, named by Einstein as the father of the modern experimental method, died under house arrest because he wrote a treatise on the sun centered solar system. The Pope disagreed.
        In short, politically powerful religious minorities are driving very intelligent scientists to Europe. In the past very intelligent scientists were driven to the US from Europe to escape political persecution (some of it religious based, some of it race based).

        A strong faction of the founding fathers of the US left Europe specifically to escape religious based persecution. Now the tide is flowing the other direction, and it is really dumb. Stem cell findings will be made and will benefit humanity. The ultimate irony will be when Dubya gets Alzheimers or Parkinson's disease in a few more decades and has to go to Europe to receive efficacious treatment.
        • There are many people in this country who do object to this sort of research.
          Bush views on this subject were known during last election and since there was enough people to get him elected there are just as many people who do object to this research.
          They do pay taxes and therefore have a right to decide how that money will be spent.
          Remember, we are talking about federally founded research.
          If you have your own money then you are free to do whatever you want just do not be upset if I refuse to found your research.
          Again, you are talking about public funds ...
          • There are many people in this country who do object to this sort of research. Bush views on this subject were known during last election and since there was enough people to get him elected there are just as many people who do object to this research.They do pay taxes and therefore have a right to decide how that money will be spent.

            Similar arguments are made in all such cases. The most basic point is that Dubya decided to pull the rug out of stem cell research in the US. He did this to please his constituency, who have religious-based arguments to back them up - not logical ones.

            We go through this all the time with animal research. If you really are against use of animals in research, will you turn down known efficacious treatment that was dependent on such research ?

            The answer is inevitably no. Ronald Reagan, the conservative's conservative, supports stem cell research. He supports it because his family's pain and suffering is more important to him than the life of a group of amorphous cells that would oneday become a person.

            If Bush's father had Alzheimer's he would support it too. Hindsight is always 20/20, and Bush will KNOW that stem cell research is of great benefit to the entire world in another 10-15 years.

            Despite his objections and obstruction.
        • A strong faction of the founding fathers of the US left Europe specifically to escape religious based persecution

          It's arguable that a strong faction of the founding fathers of the US left Europe specifically to be able to indulge in religious based persecution.

          If you look at the history of (for example) C17 Massachusetts, the early authorities there didn't go a whole bundle on religious tolerance.

  • When politicians try to become bioethicists without a solid knowledge of the underlying science, these things are going to happen.

    By blocking future federal funds for newly created (and non-contaminated) stem cells, Bush has assured that nearly all major US innovations in stem cell research will be created by biotech companies. These companies will undoubtedly patent their work, and be more motivated to extract the greatest possible profits from their work (as they have to turn a profit on their investment), while publicly funded research generally requires federal access to patented techniques at little to no cost. Non-federal users of university patents generally don't have to pay as much for licenses, because the universities a) don't have to turn a profit, and b) don't have to repay the initial investment.

    In addition, Bush's decision has not prevented unused in vitro embryos from being destroyed. They simply get thrown out now, rather than having their stem cells extracted for research purposes.

    When a child dies, parents have the option to donate their organs to save others. When an embryo is destroyed, the Bush decision doesn't enable "parents" to do the same thing.

    A list of those who are opposed to stem cell research should be kept, then when they contract a disease that can be treated with a stem cell derived cure, they should be refused treatment.

  • SIBH (Score:1)

    by Menteb ( 161089 )
    I am going to make a SETI-like project. It's going to be open source... SIBH: Search for Intelligence in Bush's Head. We monitor the brainwaves of our George and filter out all stupid peaks. The initial brainwaves we start looking fo match an IQ of 70. Once found, we move to 80 and so on.
  • They used the mouse cells because they were necessary for the human stem cells to grow. There is some unknown process or chemical that the mouse cells provide.

    So if new stem cell lines were allowed, it still wouldn't help, because the mouse cells still have to be used, right? The article makes it sound like the restriction to old stem cells is causing the problem, but what is the alternative? If we still have to use the mouse cells, then even if new stem cell lines were allowed, we'd still have the problem.

  • Bush's plan was unworkable anyway due to patent... (Score:4, Funny)

    by hillct ( 230132 ) on Friday August 24, 2001 @06:07PM (#2215687) Homepage Journal
    It doesn't really matter, because Bush's plan was unworkable anyway, due to a patent held by the University of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation [wisc.edu] as mentioned in the Testimony of Maria Freire [dhhs.gov], Director of the Office of Technology Transfer [nih.gov] at the National Institutes of Health [nih.gov] before the Senate Subcommitte on Labor, Health & Human Services [senate.gov] back in 1999 - meaning the patent rights exclusively licensed to Geron Corporation [geron.com] were well known long before Bush's policy decision and the stories oh stem cell research 'discovered' this patent issue. In her remarks, she said in part:
    The University of Wisconsin provides us with a good example of how the Bayh-Dole Act is implemented. Early work by Dr. Thomson on non-human primates, such as Rhesus monkeys, was federally funded and therefore, the patent obtained on stem cells arising from this work is governed by this Act. In accordance with the law, the invention was disclosed to the NIH, a patent application was filed by the University, through the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), and WARF licensed the technology to a small company (Geron). Because federal funds were used for this non-human primate work, the government has a non-exclusive, royalty-free right to use the patented cells by or on behalf of the government. This would allow the government laboratories and contractors the right to use the patented cells for further research. In addition, in handling this invention the University must ensure that the goals of the Bayh-Dole Act -- utilization, commercialization, and public availability -- are implemented.
    Based on this, I'd have to say that Bush purpetrated a fraud against the American People, since it was known that this patent would get in the way of research on any existing (and potentially future) stem cell lines. Unfortunately this doesn't matter, with respext to the existing lines because it appears they may be tainted, as the article suggest may have occurred.

    --CTH
  • "George W. Bush essentially closed the door on the creation of new human embryonic stem cell lines by restricting the funding to 60 existing cell lines"

    Bush only restricted the use of US Federal Funds in regards to stem cell research. People using private funds can still do whatever they want with stem cells, and given the lucrative market for medical techniques/products derived from such reasearch, they will do so.
    • Yes, and prior to Bush's action, all federally funded stem cell research was prohibited. What Bush actually did was *extend* the funding to those 60 lines.

      Note also that some stem research was proceeding with private funding anyway.

  • I would like to see a higher percentage of computer-related articles.

    We are in the middle of one of the biggest and most amazing social revolutions in history. More than 100,000 very well-educated people have decided to form a loose brotherhood and sisterhood to give the world a complete computer operating system. There are many stories in that!

    I like the general science topics, but I think there should be more about software development. Many of the big issues aren't being discussed enough, in my opinion. For example, there needs to be a more vigorous debate about computer language development, in my opinion.

  • Moral Implications (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Rashomon ( 517692 )
    Cloning comes down to selfishness. People have have suffering and then they want an easy fix. The large majority of medical problems come from gluttony and sloth in term of overeating, eating animal fats, and not enough physical activity, etc. This leads to suffering in terms of cancer, heart disease, cirrhosis, and obesity. Now suppose will be able to cure them with a cloning based cure.

    Cloning will kill embryos, (They are babies when we want them, and embryos when we don't.)

    Another reason for embryos is test tube babies. A lot of embryos have to be discarded because of complications.

    Some day people will want a custom built cloned child. They will probably discard one that doesn't have pretty eyes or birth-defects.

    With current technology, most cloned animals die shortly after death, as the body slowly breaks down. So obviously a cloned human is going to suffer because the system will not be perfected for awhile.

    Clones would be abused as property to make our lives better at their expense.

    Think further into the future when clones do exist. If we can clone a perfect soldier, or perfect housekeeper, can we feel comfortable when we abuse/kill them, because they are a comodity that can be replaced in a lab?

    Anyone who's seen Blade Runner knows what I'm getting at. Will cloning just make us devalue life? Should clones in essence be our slaves? Are they going to have citizenship? Already we value the life of the mother above the one of an aborted baby.

    We are going to rationalize cloning to ignore our real problems of gluttony, sloth, greed, vanity(custom building of embryos), --hell, maybe even lust, when we can design sex slaves.

    I can understand the moral delimma of cloning/abortion -- The value of life. Where do we draw the line?

  • More garbage FUD in the disinformation category. As many have already pointed out, this only applies to federal funding of stem cell research. It **does not** I repeat, categorically, **does not** prohibit stem cell research.

    Cripes.

    Derek
  • All the big drug companies (I know folks at Glaxo-Smith-etc) have labs in several countries, so that if regulations change in one country, their huge investments are not that much at risk- they just conduct research on different projects according to what is permitted where. The recent GWB decision mostly will result in certain projects taking place abroad, and will guarantee that smaller companies cannot participate as easily, since they can't fork over for the licensing like the big boys can and can't spring for labs in a bunch of countries.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close