.Obama to reverse Bush-era stem cell policy
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama's announcement Monday that he is overturning his predecessor's policies toward embryonic stem cells also will include a broad declaration that science - not political ideology - would guide his administration.
Obama planned to reverse President George W. Bush's limits on federally funded stem cell research and direct the National Institutes of Health to put in place safeguards so science is protected from political interference. The moves would fulfill a campaign promise.
"We've got eight years of science to make up for," said Dr. Curt Civin, whose research allowed scientists to isolate stem cells and who now serves as the founding director of the University of Maryland Center for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine. "Now, the silly restrictions are lifted."
Bush limited taxpayer money for stem cell research to a small number of stem cell lines that were created before Aug. 9, 2001. Many of those faced drawbacks. Hundreds more of such lines - groups of cells that can continue to propagate in lab dishes - have been created since then. Scientists say those newer lines are healthier and better suited to creating treatments for diseases, but they were largely off-limits to researchers who took federal dollars.
"We view what happened with stem cell research in the last administration is one manifestation of failure to think carefully about how federal support of science and the use of scientific advice occurs," said Harold Varmus, a Nobel Prize-winning biologist who is chairman of the White House's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology.
Bush and his supporters said they were defending human life; days-old embryos - typically from fertility-clinic leftovers otherwise destined to be thrown away - are destroyed for the stem cells.
Obama's advisers sought to downplay the divisions.
"I think we all realize, and the president certainly understands, there are people of good faith on both sides of this issue," said Melody Barnes, the White House's domestic policy adviser. "We recognize there are a range of beliefs on this."
Rep. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House, said the focus should be on the economy, not on a long-simmering debate over stem cells.
"Frankly, federal funding of embryonic stem cell research can bring on embryo harvesting, perhaps even human cloning that occurs," he said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union.""We don't want that. ... And certainly that is something that we ought to be talking about, but let's take care of business first. People are out of jobs."
The long-promised move will allow a rush of research aimed at one day better treating, if not curing, ailments from diabetes to paralysis - research that has drawn broad support, including from notables such as Nancy Reagan, widow of the late Republican President Ronald Reagan, and the late Christopher Reeve.
The move also will highlight divisions within the Republican Party, now in the minority and lacking votes in Congress to stop Obama.
The proposed changes, which Obama planned to sign around noon Monday, do not fund creation of new lines, nor specify which existing lines can be used. They mean 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.
Embryonic stem cells are master cells that can morph into any cell of the body. Scientists hope to harness them so they can create replacement tissues to treat a variety of diseases - such as new insulin-producing cells for diabetics, cells that could help those with Parkinson's disease or maybe even Alzheimer's, or new nerve connections to restore movement after spinal injury.
But they come with criticism.
"I believe it is unethical to use human life, even young embryonic life, to advance science," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative organization that opposes the move.
"While such research is unfortunately legal, taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for experiments that require the destruction of human life," said Perkins. "I urge President Obama to direct funding not only to the best science, but also to the surest common ground - research using adult stem cells and stem cells created by reprogramming."
Civin said that type of rhetoric was not helpful.
"This was already life that was going to be destroyed," he said. "The choice is throw them away or use them for research."
MyWay
Thank God!, or better yet, thanks Obama.
Obama planned to reverse President George W. Bush's limits on federally funded stem cell research and direct the National Institutes of Health to put in place safeguards so science is protected from political interference. The moves would fulfill a campaign promise.
"We've got eight years of science to make up for," said Dr. Curt Civin, whose research allowed scientists to isolate stem cells and who now serves as the founding director of the University of Maryland Center for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine. "Now, the silly restrictions are lifted."
Bush limited taxpayer money for stem cell research to a small number of stem cell lines that were created before Aug. 9, 2001. Many of those faced drawbacks. Hundreds more of such lines - groups of cells that can continue to propagate in lab dishes - have been created since then. Scientists say those newer lines are healthier and better suited to creating treatments for diseases, but they were largely off-limits to researchers who took federal dollars.
"We view what happened with stem cell research in the last administration is one manifestation of failure to think carefully about how federal support of science and the use of scientific advice occurs," said Harold Varmus, a Nobel Prize-winning biologist who is chairman of the White House's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology.
Bush and his supporters said they were defending human life; days-old embryos - typically from fertility-clinic leftovers otherwise destined to be thrown away - are destroyed for the stem cells.
Obama's advisers sought to downplay the divisions.
"I think we all realize, and the president certainly understands, there are people of good faith on both sides of this issue," said Melody Barnes, the White House's domestic policy adviser. "We recognize there are a range of beliefs on this."
Rep. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House, said the focus should be on the economy, not on a long-simmering debate over stem cells.
"Frankly, federal funding of embryonic stem cell research can bring on embryo harvesting, perhaps even human cloning that occurs," he said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union.""We don't want that. ... And certainly that is something that we ought to be talking about, but let's take care of business first. People are out of jobs."
The long-promised move will allow a rush of research aimed at one day better treating, if not curing, ailments from diabetes to paralysis - research that has drawn broad support, including from notables such as Nancy Reagan, widow of the late Republican President Ronald Reagan, and the late Christopher Reeve.
The move also will highlight divisions within the Republican Party, now in the minority and lacking votes in Congress to stop Obama.
The proposed changes, which Obama planned to sign around noon Monday, do not fund creation of new lines, nor specify which existing lines can be used. They mean 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.
Embryonic stem cells are master cells that can morph into any cell of the body. Scientists hope to harness them so they can create replacement tissues to treat a variety of diseases - such as new insulin-producing cells for diabetics, cells that could help those with Parkinson's disease or maybe even Alzheimer's, or new nerve connections to restore movement after spinal injury.
But they come with criticism.
"I believe it is unethical to use human life, even young embryonic life, to advance science," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative organization that opposes the move.
"While such research is unfortunately legal, taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for experiments that require the destruction of human life," said Perkins. "I urge President Obama to direct funding not only to the best science, but also to the surest common ground - research using adult stem cells and stem cells created by reprogramming."
Civin said that type of rhetoric was not helpful.
"This was already life that was going to be destroyed," he said. "The choice is throw them away or use them for research."
MyWay
Thank God!, or better yet, thanks Obama.
posted by madtom at 5:54 PM
8 Comments:
To paraphrase someone on a similar subject--Can you imagine cheer leading destruction of innocent life?
This will just be another issue in which Bush will shine next to the O man when the history is written. Bush gave one of the most thoughtful , well reasoned speeches on ethics and science ever given by a President when giving his decision, O man did his deal where he builds up a case against that position by lying and flip exaggerations, and pretty much ignores the ethical arguments entirely. Ethics! He don' need no stinkin' ethics! He IS God! It's becoming more clear to me every day.
Let's ignore the fact that research is showing that adult stem cells and placental stem cells are more effective, or that stem cells taken from cord blood are indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells in all respects for the purpose of study--- except cord blood stem cells have no potential for human life. Why? What is that 'thing' that makes them different? They don't know why! But for those where abortion is their true cause, great joy will ensue and they can play catch with embryonic remains in a demonstration of 'fuck you' to every judgmental backward rube who thinks life is sacred and beyond the limits of current human capacity to understand.
I guess these people can now say with certainty the exact point at which a human fertilized egg becomes a human and at what point rendering its destruction and manipulation unethical? Have you seen that study? I wish someone would show it to me because I hate to think that I am paying for experimentation and destruction of human life and right now, no one has proven to me that isn't exactly what is being done. Is it two cells? Four, eight, sixteen, thirty-two, sixty-four, the instant before 'it' takes an independent breath of air? Age two? Will it be ok to kill them up to the point they acknowledge same sex marriage is better than traditional marriage? Please, Dear Leader, tell me so I too can celebrate the infinite wisdom that has suddenly come with your ascension to the throne. You clearly have no idea how to fix a broken banking and lending system, the free markets are a complete unknowable mystery to you, but you have decided with certainty the moment when life hasn't begun and that there can't possibly be any unforeseen disastrous implications coming from the manipulation and destruction of the unknowable 'thing' that makes us human and not a rock. Sorry, I guess I should work on my 'don't worry, be happy' routine. What we need is a big asteroid hurtling toward Earth to focus our minds on something we can all agree on as being 'bad' for humanity. Maybe someday.....
"Let's ignore the fact that research is showing that adult stem cells and placental stem cells are more effective, or that stem cells taken from cord blood are indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells in all respects for the purpose of study--- "
No, that's wrong, to a degree. we are back to our old argument. The problem with all the stem cell lines is that there is no way to distinguish the stem cells from other cells in the batch. That is true for all the classes you mention. The one advantage that embryonic cells have over all the rest is that they are all stem cells, no other cells are involved. So you can study stem cells in your experiment. One of the driving areas of the research is to find distinguishing marker so that "stem cells" in the other areas can be identified and purified...that is not possible today,a nd there is only one way known to get there from here.
The next thing is the development of the embryo...you need an embryo to study that. At what point does a genetic defect affect development? You don't know, I don't know, no one knows. Why not find out.
"I guess these people can now say with certainty the exact point at which a human fertilized egg becomes a human and at what point rendering its destruction and manipulation unethical?"
Isn't that question already answered, the same as an abortion.
What I would like to know is, Why did Galileo want with that telescope. The Bible already tells us all we needed to know about the universe, why did he have to go ruin everything.
All I know is that every time I read of some advance, its when adult stem cells or placental stem cells are used. I read yesterday that science has largely rendered the decision to use embryos for stem cells as moot in the opinion of many in the field. There are better ways. Embryonic stem cells are being used all over the world, but for some reason, they aren't getting any great benefit from what I have read. but even if they did, I'd still oppose it.
The Bible has nothing directly to do with my opinion, MT. I find sentient life sacred because it's beyond human understanding at this point. It's one of the most rare things in the universe, and perhaps the most rare. I don't think we have enough on the ball to start screwing around with it until we know what it is, where it comes from and when it begins. You have no possible way of knowing what could come from experimentation on human embryos, either on our biological future or on society that may come to regard human life as no more mysterious or marvelous than a large turd under glass. Just today I read where a federally funded Planned Parenthood facility was routinely allowing chemically aborted babies to die when they were just a little to determined to not die in the womb like good little children. Why not let them die on the floor? Is there really a difference?
It's infinitely more dangerous than this search for and study of antimatter particles by trying to force a collision. Apparently some really smart people have some understanding of what they are dealing with there. I have yet to hear from anyone who knows where humanity comes from or when without resorting to myth. Lots have tried, but I want some evidence and mathematical formulas before I'm going to accept we should play games with it without fear of doing harm. If anything still deserves to be regarded as sacred, its the creation of human life. Maybe someday it will be explained so thoroughly it's no more sacred than taking a dump as some seem to believe, but I doubt it. And that would be a shame.
You say the question of when life begins has been answered--- OK, what is the answer? guide me to the empirical data. I really would like to be clued in. You have to draw the line somewhere, and since no one truly knows, I draw that line at the very beginning. That is a perfectly logical approach to the question. Should you be allowed to blindly shoot into a crowd since you really have no way of knowing if anyone will be killed? That's called reckless indifference, isn't it? It is to me and I don't want to participate, even if my own life depended on it. Most of the time I can't stand people, but I hold humanity in the highest regard.
Oh well, rant over, again. I'll never see it your way unless you can show me what human life is and when it begins in a fertilized egg. I won't pretend I know, though I know I felt it the moment I became aware of its existence in the case of my own children, so I will assume it is at the very beginning, just to be safe.
Do you believe human life is any different to any other life.
I think we are bald monkeys.
Shave a monkey and once he's through trying to rip your face off, ask him to speculate on his existence and he will just give you a blank stare, pick his butt, put his finger to his nose and then lick it.... OK, I see you point. Just speak for yourself.
I don't know, you could be describing friends of mine...
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44943
The O man is amazing in his confusion and ineptitude. That fed funds for experimenting on children he approved of on Mon, he banned on Tuesday.
One party rule is always a disaster.
One loop hole that I am sure they will jump thru, is that stem cells don't die, and so the embryo doesn't die either. According to the reading this story assumes there would be no support of human fertility treatments, that many research universities do, and receive federal funding for. So I am sure there are loop holes you can drive trucks thru in the underlying legislation. What this legislation does not allow is farming of embryos for the purpose of research. I hope that does not change either.
Post a Comment
<< Home